TV Makers Pushing 3-D at Home – C-Net
I have a PS3 and I would be interested in 3-D.
Many of the biggest names in consumer technology are pushing not only 3D cinema, but watching 3D movies and playing 3D games at home.
Earlier this week, Sony CEO Howard Stringer promised Blu-ray players, PlayStation 3, and laptops that will be “3D compatible” next year. Panasonic used the upcoming James Cameron flick “Avatar” to push its “Full HD 3D” idea, and Nvidia and JVC are also showing off monitors and TVs that will make even PC video game playing three-dimensional.
But most of all, the companies that make consumer electronics see it as something else to sell that will distinguish their brand from the rest of the pack and from what they currently have at home. Blu-ray prices are coming down and the format is now solidly successful. And HDTVs, which became a must-have item, are becoming a commodity as well. Manufacturers are always on the lookout for some new twist that will compel users to upgrade, and for now, that appears to be 3D in the home.
So after the very marginal success of HDTV, and the even more marginal “true HD” we will move onto the totally irrelevant HD3d??
LOL, what will the media industry try to come up with next to try and stem the flow of internet video?
Wouldn’t it be eaiser just to make 2D TV shows that were worth watching?
I sure thought 3-D Immersive Environments would have been here by now given they were displayed at the Worlds Fair in Canada years back.
Pterodactyl was “ok” and showed real promise. What happened?
All they do is display stupid gimmicks and it is just for part of the show where they throw stuff at the viewer from the screen. Make a truly 3D movie like Up.
bobbo, said,
“What happened?”
The same thing that happened in the 60’s to predictions of jet packs, flying cars and routine trips to the moon that we could expect in the next 20 years. Reality stepped in.
And I was really looking forward to going to the moon too.
Dammed reality!
#4,
I figured the exclusively 3d movies like Up and Coraline were done that way in an attempt to plug the analog hole so that those awful bittorrent videocam versions took a little longer to show up…
Back in December, 2008 they shot an NFL game in 3-D. I haven’t heard anything about how that went.
#5
I’m lost by your rationalization. 3-D “immersive” worlds have been around for over 10+ years now. My first happened during my sophomore year in college which is close to 15 years. The 3-D world was fantastic for it’s time and the virtual movements were fluid. Granted their hasn’t been progress in the field but it’s there waiting for the “right” opportunity.
By reality do you mean the idea is being stopped due to various reasons and not because it is impossible? Jet packs are around (see the episode of that show….urg, name not coming to mind…u know the show with the two guys trying to disprove/prove things hehe), flying cars (although limited) are around and flying to the moon would be awesome if NASA didn’t suck so much.
[Mythbusters. – ed.]
#6 Postman said, on September 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm “#4,I figured the exclusively 3d movies like Up and Coraline were done that way in an attempt to plug the analog hole so that those awful bittorrent videocam versions took a little longer to show up…”
As opposed to the gimmicky 3D movies that have throwing stuff at the audience scenes? The exclusive 3d movies are the way to go with 3D. Otherwise it would be better to do the movie in 2D
Hollywood doesn’t have stories worth paying to see anymore. Fortunately there’s still plenty of books worth reading.
This has FAIL written all over the devices — until the porn industry realizes their worth. Why watch lifeless sex films in 2D when the “you are there” experience will be so much better?
#7,
Football will be really awsome in a couple of years, when they use multiple cameras and real time motion/model capture to present us with a game that lets us move the camera to where ever we want to. The technology is almost there, but a few years off yet.
But I still don’t think that will transform the act of watching football all that much.
While it is nice to see technology advancing I don’t see how they really expect to get it into homes in the near future. Between the recent economy, all the people who have already upgraded to HDTVs, all the people who have yet to upgrade to HDTVs and the fact that true HD is still lacking it doesn’t seem like there would be much of a market for an entirely new set of upgrades in the next few years outside of the bleeding edge gamers.
3D has failed every time it’s been tried. Why? It’s too damned hard to watch. And with TVs there will be a very limited angle of view. Since most people won’t sit through an evening of 3D, the networks won’t produce much content for it; advertisers won’t buy the time for it; people won’t buy the TVs.
Fail.
#11
With the current price for a happy ending blow job at the titty bar hovering between $20-40 dollars, it will be a select few who opt to shell out the multiple 10s of k for a worth while home theater for just porn.
The economics of porn have changed since the 90’s. Mainly, porn now days is just advertising for the sex worker industry, and even then, the price for sex workers time has fallen out the last couple of years. Just five years ago prices were in the $200 per happy ending range, now it is just a fraction of that. That is for the good looking sex workers. The Lizards no longer have any marketable value…
I remember my first “3D” experience. It was a porn film, that actually wasn’t half bad, plot wise. But has since disappeared, never to be see again. Perhaps because it offended the major airlines industry. Since it was about a traveling group of stews, getting naked. I can’t recall the title, but it used those polarized 3D glasses. Not the cheap two color cellophane lens, and paper frames. You didn’t get to keep them either.
The 3D effect was only good for anything filmed within 30 feet of the camera. Beyond that, and it’s back to plain old 2D. So all their stock footage of planes taking off and landing, and other outdoor action, were in 2D. Only the racy indoor scenes were in 3D. Which really didn’t add much to the plot or action. And No! Nothing got squirted into the camera lens. No 3D closeups, at all!
And the damn theater projector was misaligned! So the double images were not perfectly horizontal to each other. I got a sore neck, watching the stupid film at an angle. Cost me $3, back in the 70s.
Some years later, I went to see a regular movie, in “3D”, at a drive-in. It used the cheap two color frames. But either the drive-in’s projector power was too low, or the neighborhood light pollution was too strong. It made the movie so dim, it was totally unwatchable thru the glasses.
And from what I’ve seen of 3D movies on Tv. It’s next to impossible to get the colors just right, to match the lens colors. Only the polarized technique works with any reliability.
The main problem is that there are few, if any, movie directors who know how to put this to any truly creative and original use. Only the video gaming industry has managed to. And maybe one B&W Three Stooges movie, I saw long ago. But that movie didn’t require any glasses to watch it.
What Hollywood usually picks to 3D-ify, are horror movies. As if it’s not bad enough (or horrifying enough) to see someone’s guts ripped out before you. They want to do it in 3D! Want sadists these film producers are.
What always surprised me was how some past movies (non-horror) managed a mock 3D effect, during certain scenes. No glasses required. Remember the “flying down the trench” scene in Star Wars? It looked 3D enough for me. I was blown away by that for hours, the first few times I saw it. Another film was “Watcher in the Woods”, in which they used a Steadicam to film a run thru a wooded area. It was weird!
It’s all about filming stationary objects, as they move from background to foreground, relative to the camera. And slowly shifting and tilting the camera’s axises. And with CGI, I think it has more to do with forced perspectives and motion. The first Star Trek movie seemed 3D like, in outer space scenes. Who needs damn glasses? Isn’t a 2:1 screen ratio enough to play around with?!
no blu-ray, no hdtv, no desire for 3D tv