Is 3D dying?
- Thread starter vurbano
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 10K
My definition of a "3D hater" I post this because some of you don't know me well enough to understand the way I think and may be offended for no real reason.
When I see people go out of their way to post anti sentiments about 3d or any form of entertainment I assume they don't like it and worse, don't want anyone else to enjoy it. If you don't like a form of entertainment, fine, no enthusiast cares UNLESS your reasons are not based in fact. For example, you may not like any 3D because historically, all movies made in 3D were low budget goofy horror films. Hey, that is history and I can't do anything about that. However, today, we are seeing a whole host of quality movies, not just Avatar but many good movies in 3D that entertain millions of people. Plus the quality of these 21st century movies is much improved over those from the 50's and 60's. Comments like I don't need to pay extra to have a stick poke me in the face are generalizations that only ignorant people who don't go to 3D movies much seem to make. But these aren't "haters" They just don't care for the form of entertainment and that's OK. Most intelligent people recognize the ignorance in their comments and get a laugh at them. The hater is the individual who constantly posts comments like "3D is doomed to fail because most people hate it" etc. Stuff like that. They may find some other person who also hates 3D and will quote that hater in support of their personal opinions. Don't ask me to explain why some people feel the need to do this. I don't know but do feel it is destructive only to themselves and gains them nothing.
I'm a stereographer and 3D enthusiast. I spend most of my days learning about this and enjoy it. I was first fascinated by stereography when I was a kid so this is not anything new to me. By the same token, I don't prefer golf on TV, or Baseball on TV. But I am not a hater of these programs as I don't go into MLB enthusiasts' threads and pontificate my opinions on the sport, programming, or fans. I respect their entertainment and am happy they have fun with it. But as it is not for me, I feel I have no business making derogatory and negative posts based on my ignorance of that form of programming. It's their game, not mine.
Its OK with me if someone posts a piece of bad news, like a 3D channel getting reduced to part time. That is not a 3D hater by my definition, just a person who wishes to post a news item. However, when that person goes beyond that and makes false statements either additive or by omission and extrapolates to a conclusion that 3D is doomed adding that DirecTv is ending all 3D or giving that impression, then I feel obligated to step in and make a correction with what we know as factual. It's the motivation and exaggeration that makes one a "hater" or just a poster of bad news.
As a 3D enthusiast, I hope that 3D capability will be added to all TV's and Blu Ray players since the new technology is not that much more cost additive than just making a good 2D TV. I would like it to become commonplace as part of the TV set just like we have cable channels added some years ago. But for programming, I do not want to see every movie made nor every program aired to be in 3D. It's not necessary. There have been a few 3D movies that I have seen that I felt were better in 2D. Most get an added benefit but a few are distracted. The good thing is I can have a choice! "Haters" whether they admit it or not, don't want me to have that choice.
When I see people go out of their way to post anti sentiments about 3d or any form of entertainment I assume they don't like it and worse, don't want anyone else to enjoy it. If you don't like a form of entertainment, fine, no enthusiast cares UNLESS your reasons are not based in fact. For example, you may not like any 3D because historically, all movies made in 3D were low budget goofy horror films. Hey, that is history and I can't do anything about that. However, today, we are seeing a whole host of quality movies, not just Avatar but many good movies in 3D that entertain millions of people. Plus the quality of these 21st century movies is much improved over those from the 50's and 60's. Comments like I don't need to pay extra to have a stick poke me in the face are generalizations that only ignorant people who don't go to 3D movies much seem to make. But these aren't "haters" They just don't care for the form of entertainment and that's OK. Most intelligent people recognize the ignorance in their comments and get a laugh at them. The hater is the individual who constantly posts comments like "3D is doomed to fail because most people hate it" etc. Stuff like that. They may find some other person who also hates 3D and will quote that hater in support of their personal opinions. Don't ask me to explain why some people feel the need to do this. I don't know but do feel it is destructive only to themselves and gains them nothing.
I'm a stereographer and 3D enthusiast. I spend most of my days learning about this and enjoy it. I was first fascinated by stereography when I was a kid so this is not anything new to me. By the same token, I don't prefer golf on TV, or Baseball on TV. But I am not a hater of these programs as I don't go into MLB enthusiasts' threads and pontificate my opinions on the sport, programming, or fans. I respect their entertainment and am happy they have fun with it. But as it is not for me, I feel I have no business making derogatory and negative posts based on my ignorance of that form of programming. It's their game, not mine.
Its OK with me if someone posts a piece of bad news, like a 3D channel getting reduced to part time. That is not a 3D hater by my definition, just a person who wishes to post a news item. However, when that person goes beyond that and makes false statements either additive or by omission and extrapolates to a conclusion that 3D is doomed adding that DirecTv is ending all 3D or giving that impression, then I feel obligated to step in and make a correction with what we know as factual. It's the motivation and exaggeration that makes one a "hater" or just a poster of bad news.
As a 3D enthusiast, I hope that 3D capability will be added to all TV's and Blu Ray players since the new technology is not that much more cost additive than just making a good 2D TV. I would like it to become commonplace as part of the TV set just like we have cable channels added some years ago. But for programming, I do not want to see every movie made nor every program aired to be in 3D. It's not necessary. There have been a few 3D movies that I have seen that I felt were better in 2D. Most get an added benefit but a few are distracted. The good thing is I can have a choice! "Haters" whether they admit it or not, don't want me to have that choice.
And it can be done at a reasonable cost and with sufficient content to support it and after networks buy the equipment and shoot an adequate amount of content in 3D. That's a lot of ifs but I basically agree with you.
You must have had Dish for HD then, because Directv's HD when it first came out was way better than today even.
3D at the theater is getting better. Directors are realizing that people are essentially wearing sunglasses while watching the movie and have moved to improve brightness. Movies shot in 3D are noticeably clearer than they were a few years ago.
Here is something intriguing from Vizio,the XVT 3D CinemaWide Razor LED Smart TV(a mouth full to say) VIZIO XVT 3D CinemaWide™ Razor LED™ Smart HDTV | Cinemawide 3D TV . I understand that it's been out since March of this year & supposedly they are coming out with larger screens later this year. The price is too much for me right now,but if it takes off & is still around when I file for my tax refund the beginning of next year.....(hopefully the price will go down also).
It's really hard to put a good definition to what people believe they want. What most people think of as "3D" is not really 3 dimensional at all. It's nothing more than an extension of flat imaging and is more accurately stated as stereography. Stereography is a front viewed only image that has the illusion of depth in front of you. It most definitely is ARTIFICIAL! To quest for realistic look in 3D would mean more of the experience where you can be immersed with an image all around you and everything in that image you can walk around and view from all sides. This is more in line with the Star Trek Holodeck. Not anything we can do with present technology but a close proximity of a Holographic image is now possible using pyramidal mirrors. You can view the image from all around it but this technology does not permit you to enter the environment yet. Presently the use for this is in kiosk advertising and museum displays.
What we have with traditional stereography is nothing more than an extension of 2D flat presentations.
While history is well documented that 3D stereography has come and gone in popularity over the decades throughout the 20th century, the driving force has never been public demand. It has always been driven by creative artists with a vision in how to tell their story using the medium. But there was a paradigm shift in the last 4 years with the development of stereography for viewing in the home that is much clearer and offers full HD image quality in the better home systems. Plus, simple to use, low cost camcorders and still cameras that are basically plug-n-play 3D. With this development, interest by top Directors in film making has had a resurgence. The growth rate of 3D productions is increasing each month. that is 3-4 times what it was just a year ago. I just ordered one new 3D movie per week this month. I could have ordered twice that many. The content availability is growing at a more rapid pace than HDDVD and Blu Ray at about the same time period. Anyone who thinks 3D is going to die at this stage is just ignorant of the volume of production and equipment being manufactured today. The last big thrust into 3D was around 1990 with field sequential technology. Most of you probably have never heard of it and the only movies done with it were low budget B horror movies. It lasted for about 2 years and died. I think about 25 movies were made during that time including VHS versions for home viewing. You can't compare those brief periods of rise in the art of 3D to today's level of development and sales.
3D producers could go a long way in getting my support, simply by keeping the depth effect behind the screen. I get so sick of having one of the actors constantly trying to poke a stick in my eye.
That is the part that is great with Sports, golf & tennis come to life with more depth as does sking & even rodeos.
Another that does not understand. 3D today, IS done in HD. HD is not necessarily 3D. Real life is 3D, unless you are blind in one eye.
A blind person could make the claim that the real world is pitch black. However, even a reasonable blind person would recognize that a person with normal vision sees the world in 3D color.
You can not make the case that the world is flat. However, you can make the case that you prefer to see the world as flat!
And, I respect your wish to do so.
Another that does not understand. 3D today, IS done in HD. HD is not necessarily 3D. Real life is 3D, unless you are blind in one eye.
A blind person could make the claim that the real world is pitch black. However, even a reasonable blind person would recognize that a person with normal vision sees the world in 3D color.
You can not make the case that the world is flat. However, you can make the case that you prefer to see the world as flat!
Don, That is correct . Real life is 3d , but 3d on the tv is nothing like real life 3d.
True! But then who in their sane mind insists that TV look like real life? I will say that if done right, with an attempt at achieving real life as a goal in production, stereography comes much closer to real life visual than 2D flat image on TV from one viewpoint. I know, as I have spent a considerable amount of effort to reach that look in my recent videos of the Valley of Fire and Bryce Canyon. From a given perspective, I can now create a scene in my home theater that the ground starts about 3 ft in front of me and extends to well beyond the screen plane 18 ft away to the mountains in the distance, an illusion that looks to be some 10-15 ft behind the screen plane. The screen itself is invisible in 3D stereography. Switching to 2D the volume of the scene flattens to just a wall mural. When I look at these scenes in 3D it is damn near as close to real as like I was still there when I shot it. Where these scenes depart from 100% real life is that stereography restricts the view point to a narrow range and you can't wander around in the scene like you can in real life. That capability is still reserved for future holographic projections. Also, the scene is size compressed so if you did enter the scene you would need to shrink by an equal amount or be a giant in the 3D virtual world.
All I'm saying is that the argument for "must be real life" doesn't apply. We can only achieve more parts of the real life experience with stereography and that would be the 3rd dimensional space illusion from the front perspective that 2D TV does not offer. And, it's OK if you don't like adding the 3rd dimension to your entertainment. That's why there are choices. It reminds me when my father got his new color TV back in the 60's and my grandfather came over to look at it. After a few minutes, he asked, can you still make the color TV look black and white? Dad said sure and he demonstrated turning the color control down. Then my Grandfather said, now that looks like normal TV. I would never say that 3D TV adds something to the entertainment, but 2D lacks a component of the entertainment that helps it look real.
True! But then who in their sane mind insists that TV look like real life? I will say that if done right, with an attempt at achieving real life as a goal in production, stereography comes much closer to real life visual than 2D flat image on TV from one viewpoint. I know, as I have spent a considerable amount of effort to reach that look in my recent videos of the Valley of Fire and Bryce Canyon. From a given perspective, I can now create a scene in my home theater that the ground starts about 3 ft in front of me and extends to well beyond the screen plane 18 ft away to the mountains in the distance, an illusion that looks to be some 10-15 ft behind the screen plane. The screen itself is invisible in 3D stereography. Switching to 2D the volume of the scene flattens to just a wall mural. When I look at these scenes in 3D it is damn near as close to real as like I was still there when I shot it. Where these scenes depart from 100% real life is that stereography restricts the view point to a narrow range and you can't wander around in the scene like you can in real life. That capability is still reserved for future holographic projections. Also, the scene is size compressed so if you did enter the scene you would need to shrink by an equal amount or be a giant in the 3D virtual world.
All I'm saying is that the argument for "must be real life" doesn't apply. We can only achieve more parts of the real life experience with stereography and that would be the 3rd dimensional space illusion from the front perspective that 2D TV does not offer. And, it's OK if you don't like adding the 3rd dimension to your entertainment. That's why there are choices. It reminds me when my father got his new color TV back in the 60's and my grandfather came over to look at it. After a few minutes, he asked, can you still make the color TV look black and white? Dad said sure and he demonstrated turning the color control down. Then my Grandfather said, now that looks like normal TV. I would never say that 3D TV adds something to the entertainment, but 2D lacks a component of the entertainment that helps it look real.
Some good points but it's up to the public to support it. They won't continue to make 3-d if people don't show up . If it survives then someone is paying to watch it . If not then it was just a fad.
Yep, I only need the "fad" to last another 40 years. After that, YOYO!
3D is probably the longest running "fad" in presentation entertainment. I bought a $100 worth of 3D new releases this week. If it ain't 3D my wife doesn't want me to spend the money.
Same here. I probably bought every anaglyph movie I could find when they came out in VHS, then DVD, then BluRay. Then,
went out and bought the frame packed version when they were released.
Who wants to go to talkies?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
You need to see the movie The Artist
Saw it last night and recalled your post here.
You need to see the movie The Artist
Saw it last night and recalled your post here.
Thank you. I just added it to my wish list.
BTW, I noticed the BD & DVD versions are exactly the same price.
Similar threads
