BBC Gives Up On 3-D Television Programming 120
RockDoctor writes "After spending several years on supporting the uptake of 3-D TV, the BBC has accepted that people don't want it, and are turning off their 3-D channels following an uptake of under 5% of households with 3-D equipment. I can just feel the joy at not having wasted my money on this technology."
3D failed for BBC (Score:3, Funny)
But, I can't help but feel they'll manage 4D just fine when the first TARDIS tv comes out.
Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:5, Informative)
When actual 3D displays become commercially available at consumer prices, you'll see 3D programming and support all across the spectrum, no pun intended. Stereovision is a cheap, headache-inducing hack, and one thing it isn't is "3-D."
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:5, Interesting)
On top of that, it's damaging to developing minds. Sega dropped development of a 3d product years ago because of a study they commissioned - the results depicted that children exposed to the 3d display suffered permanent problems with depth perception. Most adults recovered quickly from the 3d interface, but children were permanently affected.
It was discussed on /. here: 3D Displays May Be Hazardous To Young Children [slashdot.org]
For that reason alone, I won't allow my children to attend a 3d movie, and I won't have 3d equipment in my house.
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:3)
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health [audioholics.com]
"Conclusion: ... Going to a 3D movie each month probably won’t hurt anyone’s vision..."
If you get hung up on "Children under seven are at risk of strabismus – period," then you may be missing the repeated use of the words "prolonged exposure" in the article and linked studies.
All things in moderation. That's my motto. Well, one of them anyway.
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
And where is "prolonged exposure" defined (not in the audioholics link)?. Does that mean an hour, two hours, three hours?
I won't be gambling with my child's vision.
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
My favorite is this one: http://www.geteyesmart.org/eyesmart/living/3-d-movies-glasses.cfm [geteyesmart.org]
Here's another: http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/children-computer-vision-syndrome.htm#3dnews [allaboutvision.com]
And another: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/05/26/study-parents-think-3d-hurts-kids-eyes.html [bizjournals.com]
Thank you for inspiring me to research a little more than I had. Like you, I parent cautiously, but 3D once in a while doesn't make a blip on my threat radar. Happy parenting!
Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
I haven't studied that particular issue in any detail, as it's only of interest to people who will (or do) have kids, which doesn't include me, but it doesn't surprise me. For whatever reason (un-diagnosed eye socket distortion after a car crash when I was 4, or something further back in time? Don't know, don't care ; water under the bridge.), I spent my formative years with one eye far more short-sighted than the other (about 3 units of spectacle strength, when it was diagnosed at 11) and I've always had terrible difficulty with depth perception. Case in point, I just spent the day hill-walking with the wife, and as expected found walking down hill to be as hard work in the mind and nerves as walking up hill was on the legs and knees.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find that stereovision systems could mess up a developing child's depth perception brain development. Doubly so if (as I'd bet is common) they're using glasses with the wrong inter-pupil distance, whch don't stay properly in position on the head, etc. A.b.s.o.lutely no surprise.
Do I hear the land shark ambulance chasers circling?
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
But if "only 5% of people who already have a 3D display actually watch 3D stuff on it, then maybe not.
Re:Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:1)
I'm not trying to be mean. But you don't own a "3d tv"; you own a 2d, stereoscopic television that marketers *called* 3D, although it clearly isn't anything of the sort.
A 3d display will allow you to see behind the actors. If you move, your point of view will shift. If someone moves closer, it won't be the camera that has to re-focus to follow, it will be your eyes, because the objects in the display will actually be nearer or further away. You'll be able to look down on a tennis match on your display as if from the sky, from any side of the court, or up at it from (the player's) shoe-level. Your true 3d display will not take up a flat surface. It will take up an 3-d volume and within that volume, truly volumetric objects will seem to exist.
What you have right now is basically a ViewMaster [wikipedia.org] that changes images really fast. It's not 3d.
Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
No, your tv isn't 3d. It's stereo. You've been victim of deceptive marketing.
3d is 3d. Holograms can be 3d. Etc. Stereo cannot.
Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
also, virtual reality and immersion imply interaction; that's not what makes something three d (and perhaps where your confusion is coming from.) 3d means an image has three dimensions. Width, height, and depth. Your stereo image doesn't have actual depth; if it did, you could look at things from any angle and your view would change accordingly. What it has is one locked view with one locked depth of field, again, just like a viewmaster.
Well, you'll understand when the tech gets there. No point in me trying to repair the public's thinking on this. Probably can't be done anyway.
Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
Re:3D failed for BBC (Score:0)
VRTV is more likely in the near future.
Re:3D failed for BBC (Score:2)
Funny you mention the TARDIS - this Fall's Doctor Who anniversary special will be filmed in 3D and was to be broadcast in 3D. Hope it at least makes it to theaters that way.
Re:3D failed for BBC (Score:2)
this Fall's Doctor Who anniversary special will be
- has already been -
filmed in 3D and was to be
- still will be -
broadcast in 3D.
Also it's called Autumn, not Fall ;)
Re: 3D failed for BBC (Score:2)
Might happen in the US, that's a Someone Else's Problem, but I don't see any reason for it to happen in the BBC's region of legislated responsibility.
Re: 3D failed for BBC (Score:2)
Dodgy keyboard connector on my tablet!
Buddha says... (Score:5, Insightful)
...stop wanting stupid shit
Re:Buddha says... (Score:3)
...stop wanting stupid shit
Technically speaking, there was little incremental gain at great expense and modest inconvenience.
But I like your description better.
Re:Buddha says... (Score:1)
Clearly the consumer doesn't want this "stupid shit" whether Buddha says so or not.
Maybe Buddha should say to large corporations,"Stop trying to force stupid shit down your customers' throats."
Re:Buddha says... (Score:2)
Fads (Score:3)
Fad technology once again comes and then leaves just as fast. In 30 years someone else will rediscover 3D and the fad will start again.
Re:Fads (Score:3)
Re:Fads (Score:3)
Yes, and each incarnation leaves gullible first adapters with expensive toys laying around that they can never use. Or maybe they buy up few movies 3D and watch them over and over again just to convince themselves it wasn't such a dumb purchase after all. (Like laserdisks).
The problems of 3D TV are never going to be solved with a flat image plane. We've been through this before. When manufacturers have to warn kids away from their product [bbc.co.uk] (even if the warnings turned out to be overwrought [consumerreports.org]), you should probably realize that there is something less than optimum going on. And when movies that were never shot in 3D start appearing in 3D you know the effect is all computer generated an guaranteed to be sub-optimum [realorfake3d.com]. In fact if you need special glasses to view 3D TV you know its less than optimum before you even see it.
This idea will work someday, when we get multi-planar TV sets or holographic [engadget.com] displays that you can actually walk around and view from different angles. That's not likely to be a technology you hang on your wall. Because faking depth really doesn't work very well, and the resistance to wearing the glasses is significant.
Re:Fads (Score:3)
> Yes, and each incarnation leaves gullible first adapters with expensive toys laying around that they can never use. Or maybe they buy up few movies 3D and watch them over and over again just to convince themselves it wasn't such a dumb purchase after all. (Like laserdisks).
Um, hang on there. Laserdiscs became available in 1978, when VHS was consumer junk even by the standards of the time. Laserdisc users had stereo (long before VHS) and crystal clear fx (still, FF FR) almost double the horizontal resolution of VHS, and offered features in areas where VHS could not compete, like alternate language tracks. They had their issues, (laser rot in badly manufactured discs, the discs are large and unwieldy, no way to record) but did not wear out upon repeated viewings (useful for kids). In many cases, a title on Laserdisc was substantially cheaper than the same title on VHS. (VHS media was priced for rental, Laserdisc media was priced for purchase.)
Laserdisc was a viable medium from 1978 until a little after 1995, when the DVD became available. Our last Laserdisc player (which still works) was a Laserdisc/DVD combo player, which helped us make the transition to DVD.
Now, of course, I have a bunch of Laserdiscs which I never watch because (except for the really obscure) the titles are available on DVD, which is undeniably more convenient and has better quality and features. (Not too long ago, for old-times sake, I compared the Laserdisc and DVD versions of Blade Runner, Ye Gods, DVD blows Laserdisc away.) But for a little over 17 years, Laserdisc was a viable, high quality (by the standards of the time) medium. I got my first laserdisc player in 1979. I got my first VHS machine in the nineties, and then only to time-shift wife's soaps. To my knowledge, we only ever purchased one (1) movie on VHS in all of that time, the Disney animated version of The Headless Horseman, to watch before seeing Sleepy Hollow in-theater. At the time, Disney was very reluctant to sell their titles on DVD. (Now they act like they invented the format.)
Anyway, I would not call a 17+ year lifespan a fad, especially in the field of home video, which tends to have a short life cycle. There was only an 11 year gap between the release of DVD and the release of blu-ray, for instance.
Re:Fads (Score:2)
Nerve hit. Duly noted.
But you have to admit, even it its heyday, Laserdisks were even more nerdy than booting Linux on your Laserjet printer, just to see if you could do it.
Re:Fads (Score:2)
Nerve hit. Duly noted.
But you have to admit, even it its heyday, Laserdisks were even more nerdy than booting Linux on your Laserjet printer, just to see if you could do it.
I do. But where did the cool guys go to watch movies with excellent video and AC/3 sound? The nerd's house.
Re:Fads (Score:2)
Re:Fads (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about 3d is that you need to get it right (enough) before it really gets popular.
The Old 3D movies failed because of the Blue/Red filters really messed with the colors in the movie, once Color movies became more popular the 3d effect was less popular.
The New 3D movies (are better) and seem to be still somewhat popular in the theaters. The Polarized Glasses give you a better view and still get the 3d effect. However, there are still the headache problems, and the movie makers still exaggerating the effect, they are thinking 2d and adding a 3d effect to it.
The 3D TV isn't there yet. People don't watch TV like they do for movies. It is much more distracted, we watch TV, play with the Dog or the Kids, perhaps browse the internet on our phone or laptop, we get up cook dinner.... Having glasses that makes you just sit there just isn't the TV Experience.
Re:Fads (Score:2)
However, there are still the headache problems, and the movie makers still exaggerating the effect, they are thinking 2d and adding a 3d effect to it.
Actually they're underplaying the effect, which is why this is better than the last time around. There's actually not that much range of depth in well-done 3D, but it's still more than enough for the brain to latch on to.
I saw some documentaries in IMAX about 10 years ago, with things flying right in front of your face and all the way back to near-infinity - very bad for the eyes. These days the effect is usually constrained very close to the true screen depth.
Re:Fads (Score:2)
The problem I have with the current process is that there is often a diorama effect, which could be an artifact of post-processing-3d or 3d f/x in an otherwise native 3d film. The diorama effect is when you see objects at distances from each other, but the objects themselves have no 3d quality -- no depth. It looks like several 2d films running simultaneously with the closer ones in front of the ones further away. (I'm not sure how else to describe it.) The effect is striking (which is important for a fad) but does not look real on a fundamental level (which is, I think, why people will gradually lose interest).
Re:Fads (Score:1)
Actually it took about 60+ years to be "re-discovered". Hopefully it'll take another 60. Or at least perfected before they try to shove it down our throats again.
Re: Fads (Score:2)
We can take stages (5a) for granted : moral outrage. That's probably happening already.
If a technology isn't mature enough to watch women getting multiracially QPd, then it's probably not really ready for prime time.
Re: Fads (Score:2)
ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:5, Insightful)
3D needs to drop the glasses to work.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:5, Insightful)
And a common standard... otherwise it is VHS vs. Beta again.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:3)
And a common standard... otherwise it is VHS vs. Beta again.
That sounds dangerously like an opening for commodification of television hardware. And pushback against that was pretty much the only impetus behind the desperate effort of the home entertainment industry to get us to give a fuck.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:2)
And a common standard... otherwise it is VHS vs. Beta again.
Or HD-DVD vs Blue Ray [wikipedia.org].
One could argue that VHS vs Beta was a useful experiment for its time.
True some people got stuck with a technology that lost the race, but by that time the entire tape scenario had run its course and people were moving to DVDs anyway. The market decided, and it wasn't strictly along technical grounds (which is the same for the HD-DVD/Blue Ray battle).
Having been through this twice, the consumer public has gotten very nervous about competing technologies that are released about the same time. What happens is that they pretty much hold back from buying anything in quantity until some clarity appears in the market.
This is exactly what is happening with 3D TV. People see it, Ooo and Ahh, followed quickly by Yawns. The headaches induced by the glasses, the multiple standards, the limited availability of broadcast material (usually at higher cost) just have way too many people sitting on the sidelines.
With today's technology you would think that they could build both into a single machine to protect against obsolescence, especially when the media is identical in size or the various broadcast technologies can be identified and handled by and additional $12 worth of electronics in each TV set.
But the main problem is that 3D TV is pretty much a gimmick. Certain contrived scenes (Avatar) can make it work wonders, but they have nothing to do with the storytelling (and actually detract from it). But by and large it ads nothing of lasting value.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:2)
There is a standard for the delivery of "frame compatible" stereoscopic video (DVB-3DTV [dvb.org]). This is what is typically broadcast in a 3D channel today - a signal that uses the top and bottom (or side-by-side) of a typical video channel to carry half-resolution left and right eye, which has the advantage of not requiring any changes to the distribution equipment.
But yes, it is unclear what standard would be for non-glasses based 3D transmission. There was some work by Philips and Dimenco on a technology generically referred to as "2D Plus DOT" which included a base 2D image plus data on depth, occlusion and transparency.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:2)
And a common standard... otherwise it is VHS vs. Beta again.
Enlighten me on this one, because my 3D TV seems to be able to play any 3D content you can throw at it.
Sure, there are various manufacturers of 3D TVs and many of them use different technologies for their glasses, but that's just a consumer choice. They all play the same content. As for technology, my TV is a "passive" set that lets me watch 3D programming using the same glasses you get in movie theaters. You can actually bring your glasses home from the movies and use them with the TV if you want.
Re: ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:2)
Anyone got a need for a VL-bus video card? I don't, any more.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:0)
The real problem is a lack of 3D porn ... but that would probably only work well if you were into gay porn or boobies.
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:1)
Re:ESPN 3D is ending as well (Score:2)
I have a 3D TV without the glasses, but I still don't like it. I have it turned off by default.
If any of the other 5% of households are like mine, they will have it turned off by default as well.
So what's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
3D or implementation? I want to see Wimbledon in a hologram, played on my coffee table.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:2)
Implementation, probably. You've got a sizable group that can't watch this type of 3D at all due to how their eyes work, that obviously aren't buyers. But then you've got anybody watching TV *with* those people, who also can't watch 3D stuff because the person they're with won't be able to see it.
You've got the people who can watch it but get headaches (like me). You've got the people who don't want to wear stupid glasses (or deal with the viewing angles of stereoscopic stuff).
The biggest hurdle facing it is that TV has to be a huge mass market to be successful. 3D is doing better at the movies, but fewer people are going to the movies (compensated by higher prices), and the movie version seems to work better.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:2)
3D is doing better at the movies, but fewer people are going to the movies (compensated by higher prices), and the movie version seems to work better.
Actually, the news for 2012 was that box office and admissions (the former measures revenue and the latter is bodies), was down. That turned out to be totally false when the numbers finally came in.
Some interesting facts gleaned from here: http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-58fca3abdf1b.pdf [mpaa.org]
Both Revenue and Admissions were UP over the prior year. Up by 6% in the US/Canada whether measured in dollars or head-counts. (page 9).
Some of this is due to the fact that the recession was really biting in 2011, which reduced head-count. But Revenue never took a backward slide.
This trend holds true for worldwide revenue and head counts as well.
However, 3D Box Office revenue is off significantly in 2012. From a high of 2.2 billion down to 1.8. The bloom is off the rose.
Ticket prices have not kept up with the rate of inflation in the last two years, although the industry was raising prices during the height of the depression. (?!).
A movie ticket costs on average 80 cents more than id did 4 years ago.
Still, in the US and Canada, Non-moviegoers account for 32% of the population in the age group that attends movies.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:2)
However, 3D Box Office revenue is off significantly in 2012. From a high of 2.2 billion down to 1.8. The bloom is off the rose.
I still like to go to the movies in 3D when I think there's going to be lots of flashy sequences that could benefit from it (something like a "Star Trek Into Darkness" or "Man of Steel"). The problem is, I live in a major urban market where the cost of seeing a 3-D movie typically runs around $16.50 or more. A ticket to see "Man of Steel" in IMAX 3D tonight will cost $21.50, including service charges, and I think it was a couple of dollars higher on opening weekend. When I see prices like that, my interest quickly fades, and I assume the same is true for a lot of people -- particularly when we're constantly hearing reviews that say "the 3D added nothing, don't bother."
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:0)
Admit it: You just want to see inside the players outfits.
That's cool though. If your a perv.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:2)
3D or implementation? I want to see Wimbledon in a hologram, played on my coffee table.
Some of both: A lot of techniques that work well in 2d, and have a lot of TV and film people well versed in them, don't look nearly as good in 'true' 3d as opposed to 2d-with-some-perspective-tricks, so the quality of what was on tap really didn't sell the medium(doubly so if the bean counters decreed that the same 'content' must have both a 2d and a 3d release, so all the '3d' stuff was essentially required to be pure window dressing so that the 2d theater release, DVD sales, and cable licenses would still work).
And implementation certainly didn't help. "Animated holograms on your table"(even at the Star Wars level of flickery, insubstantial, probably not actually all that pleasing compared to just a normal screen of substantial size) are basically sci-fi, and the various goofy-glasses flavors don't work terribly well, at all for some people, require goofy glasses, and tend to eat some brightness and image quality compared to 2d gear of equivalent price. The fact that most of the vendors were gouging or half-assing, sometimes both, didn't help.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:2)
You're not talking about 3D - you're talking about a completely different technology which is impossible at the consumer level. 3D has roots back to the 1950's anaglyph, and ultimately back to the early days of stereoscopic viewing.
When the next generation hits, marketing will distinguish it from 3D by calling it something different - maybe holographic, even if it isn't a true hologram.
3D has always been a hack, but if you want it to work better someone has to invent the next generation - so get inventing.
Re:So what's the problem here? (Score:1)
You're not talking about 3D - you're talking about a completely different technology which is impossible at the consumer level.
Well, in the case of Wimbledon, I'm talking about 'table tennis'... which I believe is quite common.
Hooray! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, let's hope that Hollywood follows suit. The situation where there are no movies to watch because everything is ether in 3d or in the shittiest corner screens is slightly disappointing. At least when I want to give them some money.
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Get rid of the shaky camera effect too. Every single shot in Man of Steel was filmed that way and it was intensely annoying.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
It's supposed to be cinema verite, which is particularly amusing when used in a fantasy film about superheroes. Usually the only truth that cinema verite is telling me is that the director is a fad-follower.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
It's supposed to be cinema verite
It's shit, that's what it is. Really ruined the movie.
Re:Hooray! (Score:0)
3D is great, IMHO, for heavy CG (or entirely animated) films. The only times I really notice any failures are during scenes I don't like anyway (rapid and/or shaky camera movements) or when the subject is close and something in the foreground is even closer and blurry. I can't wear the glasses through the entire film, though.
Re:Hooray! (Score:1)
The Hobbit was pretty nice in 3D.
You people complain too much...
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I felt that the movie was ruined due to 3d. If half of your movie consists of blatant 'show-off 3d' shots it's rather hard to enjoy the story.
I tried.
Re:Hooray! (Score:1)
Re:Hooray! (Score:1)
That doesn't change the original point of KZigurs -- even if you watch in 2D, there are still pointless scenes of things being thrown at the camera or poked at it that in no way make the story better. It reminds me of the old SCTV sketch about Midnight Cowboy in 3D, where John Candy constantly picks up objects and pushes them toward the camera during peaceful dialog.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
I disagree.
I felt the Hobbit was the first movie I've watched to properly use the 3D medium and not be "show-offy". A lot of the 3D effects added depth into the screen, not out. This gave the gorgeous outdoor vitas a lot more impact in my opinion.
There were some exceptions, though, Gandalf's moth flying into my eye as an example.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
I went to see Hobbit in 3D to see what it was like; I found myself distinctly underwhelmed. I very much doubt I'll be seeing the next part in 3D.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
I went to see The Hobbit in 48fps and I really enjoyed how it looked. Contrary to all the people complaining about the "soap opera effect" on high-refresh-rate LCD TVs, 48fps was how that movie was really meant to be seen, and I enjoyed experiencing the filmmaker's vision.
The film itself, though? Utter, execrable schlock, and a total wasted opportunity considering the quality of the source material.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
The situation where there are no movies to watch because everything is ether in 3d or in the shittiest corner screens is slightly disappointing.
True. A big problem with what passes for 3D movies rely on hitting you in the face with 3D effects. All "3D" movies seem to have to have a roller coaster scene or equivalent. It's not cool any more, just annoying.
Cameron did a nice job with "Avatar". He figured out how to use 3D with restraint. At no point in Avatar is anything placed in front of the screen plane. In everything in Disney Crap 3D, the 3D is in your face.
There are things that can still be done. Cameron wants higher frame rates, for those big slow pans over high-detail backgrounds he likes don't have any visible strobing effects. He also points out that going to 4K resolution is meaningless after the first few rows in the theater, where nobody sits anyway.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Another 3D with restraint example is Hugo. It's a kid's movie, but it's a great story and uses absolutely no 3D gimmick shots. There is a scene where something flies at the camera- but it's in reference to a famous early 2D short film.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Hugo is, without a doubt, the finest use of 3D film (as an actual ART form) yet. Scorcese masterfully uses 3D as a new composition plane... a new form of texture to each and every shot.
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
I've been really wanting to see Hugo based on all the comments I hear about the quality of the 3D, but the 3D edition of the Blu-Ray is apparently a limited edition three-disc sets (including two discs you don't need if you have the 3D Blu-Ray and a 3D-compatible player). It's hard to find, and when I do find it somewhere it costs an arm and a leg (typically $40).
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Re:Hooray! (Score:2)
Unlikely. The theatres already blew their load and installed multi-million dollar 3D projectors.
Maybe, but many of them installed them because they were forced to buy new projectors for digital content (because film will be obsolete by the end of this year). I'm not sure the cost of getting a 3D capable projector is really significantly more than buying a new, multimillion-dollar digital projector for each screen.
I have one (Score:0)
I bought a 3D TV this year and it's pretty darn fun to watch stuff in 3D at home. The problem was always (and remains) not enough worthwhile 3D content. Seems like half of the 3D Blu-Rays on the shelves are CG cartoons for kids. Pixar or no, that type of content doesn't really interest me. Examples of really well-done 3D movies for grownups -- such as "Life of Pi" -- are few and far between.
Re:I have one (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too surprised if that has something to do with the fact that 'filming'(whether to actual...chemical film... like some kind of barbarian, or to digital) requires nontrivially different(and not inexpensive) hardware, and you have to decide that you are shooting 3d before you start shooting, while re-rendering an existing set of CG models is mostly a computational problem.
Re:I have one (Score:2)
I wouldn't be too surprised if that has something to do with the fact that 'filming'(whether to actual...chemical film... like some kind of barbarian, or to digital) requires nontrivially different(and not inexpensive) hardware, and you have to decide that you are shooting 3d before you start shooting, while re-rendering an existing set of CG models is mostly a computational problem.
That's not really it. Many of the movies released in 3D have been converted from 2D to 3D, after the fact. Early conversions looked bad ("Clash of the Titans") but newer ones are looking better and better ("Star Trek Into Darkness").
Re:I have one (Score:2)
I keep posting this, but Hugo is another good 3D film. On the surface, it's a kid's movie - but it's really a documentary on the history of film. No gimmick shots.
I got technically a 3d set. (Score:2)
I just don't have the glasses.
neglible price difference, you see. this was the right big screen for the right price at the time.
future of 3d is really in oculus type of viewers. for one it's useful for the 3d effect that the screens are tied to your face somehow.. I've watched some 3d clips with it and while I don't really give a shit about screen stereo-display hacks that vr 3d is something entirely different in effect. the only problem with the dev unit is resolution, which makes it unfeasible to watch entire movies with it, but it shows the principle works well enough for movies(you produce a fake screen in vr for the display and don't stretch the movie all over the vision if you were wondering how it works ok, there's sw already that does it for any 3d movie format).
Re:I got technically a 3d set. (Score:2)
Most of the 3D sales figures marketers were foaming at the mouth over were just like yours.
I remember watching a couple of 3D features in the '70s and early '80s on the old analog color TV using cheap glasses they were giving away at convenience stores.
I wonder what big gimmick they'll try next to avoid selling decent quality commodity goods at a fair price?
Re:I got technically a 3d set. (Score:2)
Yep, I bought a 3D tv, but didn't buy glasses -- we wanted the 240Hz update of this Samsung LED model. I'm don't like motion blur and ghosting, and this one seemed to be the best in the store, in that respect.
A year later (when they were much cheaper), we bought the glasses for fun, have only used them a few times.
Not long ago, I put a 25" Sony WEGA Trinitron tv on Craigslist and a young buyer showed up right away--he was going to use it with old video game consoles and he mentioned that it was much better than any flat panel, no trails.
Re:I got technically a 3d set. (Score:2)
future of 3d is really in oculus type of viewers. for one it's useful for the 3d effect that the screens are tied to your face somehow.
That's the problem. Practically every 3D technology is tied to your face somehow - color anaglyphic glasses, linearly polarized glasses, circularly polarized glasses (Real3D), LCD shutter glasses, VR goggles, and a few others. The ones that are not tied to your face have limitations. True holograms are static, and monochromatic. Rainbow holograms lack vertical parallax, as does that thing with the spinning mirror that reflects images from an overhead screen.
Personally, I think we'll be able to tie directly into the visual cortex long before we get real 3D displays going.
Oculus VR (Score:2)
Pointless - someone make it happen!
Re:Oculus VR (Score:2)
I've seen the imax demo for the Oculus VR. But could you make that Imax 3D :) each eye would get its image for the film and you'd get 3D cinema in VR.
Pointless - someone make it happen!
watching 3d movies on oculus vr works wonderfully. only problem is the poor resolution of the dev kit set..
when those sets get high def per middle area of vision and sub 100 bucks cheap, that's when 3d content kicks off actually...
(this needs more than hd screen in the oculus like device, like a 4k screen in current design)
3D is something special (Score:0)
3D was misunderstood, with glasses on you can't watch it like regular TV. Check your iPad, talk to relatives, and so on. It's not suitable for show or news. What it is good for is watching moves like in move theater. When you sit and watch from the beginning to the end, with optional pause. And, of course, it can be good for gaming, at least some types of games, like FPS. The good thing about 3D TV is they work well as normal 2D, and price isn't much higher.
Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I hate 3D. Therefore this thrills me.
2) 3D has always failed. No surprise here.
Well, here's reality. 3D movies are here to stay. But despite the usual hysterical ramblings that insist that "everything" is in 3D, reality begs to differ. Major Hollywood big budget action flicks (ie. superhero moves, "stuff blows up" movies) will be in 3D. Comedies and dramas likely will not be. All animated films from any major studio will be in 3D from now on. Roughly 20% of the films released will be in 3D. The market has shown a willingness to support 3D under these conditions. However, 3D TV penetration is low. TV providers aren't carrying 3D feeds. I actually do have a 3D TV, which I love, but my TV provider chose to not carry any 3D channels. So although I have the equipment necessary to watch TV shows in 3D, I cannot do so. So it's no surprised that 3D TV channels are dying. But in terms of movies, sorry folks, but it's staying.
Re:Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:2)
Your title describes it perfectly.
People piss and moan about how 3D is taking over in cinemas. I've gone to the movies about a half-dozen times this year and I only really go to the theater to see the big-budget action movies. And yet, this year I haven't been forced to see anything in 3D (although my group of friends consciously chose to see Hobbit in 3D).
So is there really anything so terrible about offering the option? Obviously, most people would prefer that better movies be made, but that's not something that interferes with the ability of a movie to be 3D.
Re:Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:2)
The problem is the gimmicky scenes inserted in movies to show off the 3D effect. When watching in 2D those scenes are still there. And you get the alienating effect of realising the point of the scene is a special effect that you're not seeing.
Re:Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:1)
Re:Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:2)
Thrilled to have less options? (Score:2)
Re:Yea! Another thread for the luddites (Score:2)
the real reason 3D TV failed (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a reason 3D TV failed, and it is never discussed. To understand the reason, you must explore the entire history of broadcast TV.
Now TV was invented by various engineers across the globe, which is why 3+ nations all claim their own people were the first to think of the idea. The first TV services were all set to go massive before WW2, but the war encouraged authoritarian governments to claim that TV for the masses would be a distraction, and so TV had to wait until 1945 to get a proper start.
The stall was useful, for it encouraged greater consideration of TV standards. Indeed, the concept of standards, and ensuring that equipment bought by consumers would continue to be useful, became the defining nature of television services across the globe. Early plans for colour TV around 1950 came to nought, for instance, because the proposed technology had no comparability with the principles of B/W television.
Colour TV only kicked in when engineers figured out how to make it backward compatible with B/W receivers.
Now, here's where we can discuss the failure of 3D TV.
-TV channels are VERY expensive. Therefore new TV channels must demand a large premium (like the early hi-definition sports and first-run Hollywood film channels) or be very popular from the off.
-Backward compatibility allows new channel broadcast technology to be introduced with ZERO market disadvantage
-All of the first world TV services (at great expense and effort) got converted to digital standards, where the receivers were universally some form of programmable computer
My point is this. If, when DTV was introduced, DTV receivers had been forced to implement support for what we know as SBS (side-by-side) transmission, every single DTV receiver would have had compatibility with SBS 3D broadcasts, even when the TV was NOT a 3D TV. Every DTV box already has full circuitry to 'zoom', rescale, and pan the received picture. These receivers could have had the ability to zoom into the left half of a SBS transmission, and blow-up this half-image (which is actually a full picture) to fill the entire screen.
A few lines of code. No change to the electronics. Every DTV receiver ever built could have supported the conversion of SBS 3D broadcasts to an ordinary 2D image for non-3D TVs.
Why did this not happen? Why did the standards people screw up this badly?
The answer is horrible. The people originally building 3D consumer equipment wanted ZERO backward compatibility. They thought if 3D took off, there would be massive profits from having to retool the entire TV production chain. Rather than use the sane SBS format, they proposed complex new CODECs that would require new and very expensive equipment at every stage of the process. They forgot one thing. Without backward compatibility, a very important thing could never happen.
What are the cheapest shows to make in native 3D? Sitcoms and soaps. But sitcoms and soaps, the mainstay of ordinary broadcast TV, would continue to be watched mostly by people with 2D sets. It was ESSENTIAL, repeat ESSENTIAL that TV stations could broadcast any 3D content down ordinary 2D channels in such a way that their 2D customers would not notice a change.
SBS at 1080P (the 'P' is an affectation, all modern equipment is 'progressive') would have allowed this. Your left-eye image becomes the anamorphic (squashed) left half of the picture. Your right-eye image becomes the right half of the picture. 2D DTV equipment simply zooms in on the left-eye image (a function only recent DTV equipment has). 3D receivers convert the SBS data to whatever format the 3D TV needs.
The cretins in charge messed-up fatally. The lack of zero-cost SBS support in all DTV equipment means the vast majority of 2D TV viewers have no way to process SBS transmissions even if they wanted to. The upshot is that 3D broadcast TV MUST use dedicated channels aimed exclusively at 3D TV owners, and this means only premium content (essentially new 3D Hollywood movies) can possibly earn enough
Re:the real reason 3D TV failed (Score:0)
Interesting, but wrong. Not wrong in the sense that this would have been a way to do it, but it would be have reduced the resolution of the final image, so it would have been far from perfect. Oh, and also it would have been inefficient to compress with modern codecs.
The best way to transmit 3D is to transmit an additional delta signal that distinguishes between a video feed for one eye, and the video feed for the other. Yes, it's a "new codec", but a backwardly compatible one, one that can be incorporated into ATSC and DVB tomorrow without any need to retrofit 3D older equipment to work with it. And unlike "SBS", it's efficient.
Re:the real reason 3D TV failed (Score:1)
> x264, the world's best video encoder
> best
I was totally with you up to this point. x264/h264 is certainly great, but there isn't, hasn't been, and never will be One Codec To Rule Them All. It's very much application based. If you're on embedded hardware (STB or even dSLR for example) and need to encode or decode 1080p realtime, sure its great, convenient even.
Dump that footage into FCP or some other "real" NLE suite and its nearly impossible to get frame-accurate edits. The compression and motion abstraction make h264 great for storage and transmission, but make it a bitch to work with in the editing room. There are other codecs that are great for that, like ProRes as an example, but noone would use ProRes for a deliverable, its overkill.
Re:the real reason 3D TV failed (Score:2)
SBS only results in half the resolution. While you could make a video twice as wide, the huge increase in bandwidth and data size would make them incompatible with first-generation Blu-Ray players and HDMI cables.
Non-glasses based 3D displays (Score:2)
If there is a future for 3D in television, it will be based around non-glasses based 3D displays (aka "autostereoscopic"). For example, see this display [youtube.com] by Holografika. Dolby has also been showing a non-glasses 3D TV technology recently.
The challenge of non-glasses 3D is that there needs to be at least an 8K backing 2D display to have enough pixels to effectively get HD resolution in 3D with enough views to have a smooth experience with reasonable depth.
Also for live-shot material, there has to be some kind of mathematical creation of the additional view angles - it is unlikely you will have 16 cameras shooting simultaneously - and unfortunately there often are challenges doing 2D to 3D model extrapolation.
I suspect in the future, we will shoot TV and movies using a 2D camera plus a depth camera (such as flash LIDAR or structured light like Kinect but higher resolution). Then you need the CPU ability to convert the 3D model into the many different views required.
Re:Non-glasses based 3D displays (Score:1)
The next thing that would even make "auto"stereoscopy without glasses not work for my (and a lot of other people I guess) living room movie/tv experience is that I don't "sit upright", (and thus have a left/right eye). I lie on the couch 80% of the time, and therefore have a upper/lower eye.
That's think that one of the reasons that "2D" art (Painting, Photography, Movies) has millenniums of fine examples, and "3D" (Sculptures, Live Artists) art also has millenniums of fine examples is that people are always free to look at them in different ways. You can walk around a Sculpture, you can focus on any part of a 2D image you like, etc.... but with stereoscopy you have to look in the exact way the director wanted you to look, or the effect doesn't work.
Well, DUH... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, DUH... (Score:2)
You don't love 3D. If you did you would be fascinated by Viewmaster for more than 5 minutes. You would also see the obvious catch 22 - if you love it, but you don't buy the toys to play with it, who is going to make content for it?
If you love 3D, you would realize that there are way more than "Avatar and a few cartoons" available. Lord of the rings and The Hobbit, obviously, along with "Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away", "The Great Gatsby", "Prometheus" (which wasn't a great film, but if you love 3D it certainly qualified as entertainment), "Underworld: Awakening", Hugo, and yes, piles of "cartoons" or as I like to call them, the perfect format for 3D. Integrating people with FX has been troublesome for me - Avatar was hard to watch with real people and objects interspersed. I like all or nothing with CGI, because there is no boundary effect. For that reason, the typically well done Pixar movies are great 3D. They are entertaining, and they rarely pull a 3D only gag, because so many parents are going to see it in 2D with their pack of kids because of the ticket prices.
I didn't go into documentaries - Satchurated: Live in Montreal featuring Joe Satriani is an exception to the idiotic 3D concert idea, especially because of its mastering with 7.1 sound. If you truly appreciate performing arts, seeing someone who goes beyond singing adds a whole new dimension, literally, to their talent. For the same reason I would probably skip Peter Gabriel: New Blood - Live in London 3D because there is little value add in watching a singer, whose sound production is internal.
And that's just BluRay - there are lots more not on BluRay, if you really loved 3D. Not counting 2D films changed to 3D in post-production - to me those do not exist.
I have at least one 3D device, and as rarely as I use it, I'm still fascinated by it. I don't have a 3D TV because I missed out on the 3 months between where they were available, and where they came with smart, internet connected everything, which I do NOT want. But I am supporting the format. I have at least two Anaglyph movies. One documentary in Cyan/Magenta, and Coraline with an oddball Magenta/Green that really works for the movie (Trioscopic anaglyph). With the right color temperature settings, even DVD quality, on HDTV, looks great in anaglyph.
You are the reason 3D isn't taking off - if you really liked it you would be part of the niche market. That makes me think you really don't like it as much as you think you do. Which, if true, is equally a reason why you are the problem. A product that people want, but don't buy, is a very expensive flop.
And I don't see any support for "fleecing the uninformed" - what could you possibly tell me that would make me re-consider purchasing a 3D device? Or regret buying 3D tickets? I admit that watching a 3D conversion movie is going to make some people feel taken, but after Alice in Wonderland I think most people who actually care about 3d quality know to look for the "filmed in 3D" qualifier.
Finally, for computer monitors where more processing power is available, head-tracking such as the LG DX2500 can adjust the image as you move, making 3D better. Parallax barrier offers glasses-free viewing. But despite all of the new tech, it's still the same hack as the Viewmaster.
Re: Well, DUH... (Score:2)
Stereo vistion is the first step to VRTV (Score:2)
I think they will change their minds later but I do agreed that stereovision is a joke. With the Oculus Rift in beta things are just getting started. Anything recorded now in stereovision can later more readily be converted to to whatever VR format evolves. The future is the Oculus Rift and then augmented reality displays that overlay 3d on top of what you already see. Then a shift hopefully of contact lens display.
And finally bionic direct optical nerve interface which could leap frog the contact lens display in my opinion. A similar nerve interface for the ear but not so much for sound but for virtualizing balance and momentum. And finally either a spinal tap or direct brain implant for tapping into the rest of the nerves of the body to simulate touch. There is zero chance of this not happening outside of the human race destroying itself in the next 50 years. The more sci-fi-esque future will be when your injected with nanites at birth and the implants automatically grow in the body.
Back on the subject of 3D. VR/AR displays make real hologram displays academic. If they ever become reality they will be pointless to implement commercially.
While we're at it just drop 3D at the theaters (Score:1)
3D (Score:1)