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: (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 stud
Re: (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: (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 y
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 alw
Re: (Score:2)
But if "only 5% of people who already have a 3D display actually watch 3D stuff on it, then maybe not.
Re: (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 i
Re: (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: (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
Re: Again, it's not 3D. It's stereovision. (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Dodgy keyboard connector on my tablet!
Buddha says... (Score:5, Insightful)
...stop wanting stupid shit
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:3)
Re: (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 pr
Re: (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 res
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (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 f
Re: (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: (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: (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 sam
Re: (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 gener
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (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: (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 i
Re: (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 bi
Re: (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
Re: (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
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
It's supposed to be cinema verite
It's shit, that's what it is. Really ruined the movie.
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (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 thos
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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: (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: (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 en
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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 d
Oculus VR (Score:2)
Pointless - someone make it happen!
Re: (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)
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: (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 some
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thrilled to have less options? (Score:2)
Re: (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 sta
Re: (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 ab
Re: (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 ki
Re: (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
Well, DUH... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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 cert
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 disp
While we're at it just drop 3D at the theaters (Score:1)
3D (Score:1)