AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Is 3-D the last frontier?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 3-D the last frontier?

post #1 of 26
3/8/10 at 9:11am
Thread Starter 
I am seeing so much about 3-D and how it will save the movie / theater industry, as well as being the next frontier for the consumer in home entertainment. I'm just wondering how others feel for think about this.

Personally, I don't like it I find it more distracting than immersive. I saw UP in the theater in 3-D (left with a huge headache) and then got the Blu-ray and I love watching it so much more than the 3-D. I also feel the same about Avatar for as good as it was I saw it in 3-D and wished I saw the 2-D version instead and saved the money.

Just wondering what others think.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 26
3/8/10 at 9:36am
This was discussed a couple of weeks ago. I don't have time to do the search right now, but it was a pretty long thread. If you find it, it would give you a pretty good overview of the different camps.

Edit: Okay so I did a quick search and still don't know what that thread was called. Maybe Jeff remembers what I'm talking about. The whole thing started after someone said that they didn't care for the whole 3d craze and then some fans of the tech chimed in and the debate was lively.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 26
3/8/10 at 9:37am
Hmmm, my judgement is still out.
You need a dual setup. (dual screens) If I do it I am also going to do 2 Projectors for it.

Avatar did not impress me enough to merrit it. My wife and I are going to go see Alice. If Alice blows me away I may make the change this year. Us Projector guys need to lobby the Bluray player manufactures for on board processing to handle two 2D projectors via two HDMI outputs. If that doesn't happen the processor is going to be to expensive I fear.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 26
3/8/10 at 10:06am
One thing I don't want is 3D for 3D's sake. You know, the scene where the rock/knife/car/plane/bullet/etc. is shown coming right at the audience in slow motion so that the audience can really get a feel for the 3D-ness. I fear that a large majority of the movies released in 3D will have these tacky tricks going on throughout the movie so people can be wowed and impressed with the new set that the industry has just made them buy to replace the 2 year old set they just got for HD viewing.

That said, I haven't seen a 3D movie since Captain EO at Disney Land many, many years back. If they just make good movies that also have 3D that is in no way obtrusive into the movie, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in replacing my screen, PJ and player for 3D (not to mention the need to buy what will likely be expensive glasses for each seat.)

-Suntan
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 26
3/8/10 at 10:12am
I have no desire to need to wear glasses when watching a movie at home...I have even less desire when such would require two screens, two projectors, etc...I am at the point where the next frontier for me is 4K...
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 26
3/8/10 at 10:19am
I agree on the 3-D as a gimmick. I liked that Avatar wasn't based around the premise of throwing crap at the screen. I didn't think it was that good a film but it was good enough and certainly a good implementation of 3-D. The animated films are pretty good too.

I suspect if we see 3D become mainstream, there will be plenty of good films using it but it will probably be a director's choice on using it and won't be as ubiquitous as color.

3D will probably be the last major change to film presentation (unless you haven't made the jump into motion via D-BOX). Of the 2, I think the D-BOX is a better addition to film than 3D and already has more support on the content side, the ability to convert legacy material and for most it is a lower cost addition than 3D.

After motion and 3D, I don't really see any changes to film in the future - just improvements on the existing technology.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 26
3/8/10 at 11:45am
Thread Starter 
I would rather something like this become mainstream.

By
Roger Ebert
on August 16, 2008

I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standard of 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 26
3/8/10 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTsan View Post

I would rather something like this become mainstream.

By
Roger Ebert
on August 16, 2008

“I have witnessed a believable 3-D illusion. It was at a ShoWest demonstration of Douglas Trumbell's doomed Showscan. He projected 70mm film at 60fps. It created the illusion of depth not by leaving the screen but by seeming to recede within it. It was like looking through a window and seeing the perspective of reality. You may have seen it being used in thrill rides at Disneyland. It was too expensive for theatrical films. A more affordable process, MaxiVision, creates its illusion with 35mm at 48fps. But Hollywood is profoundly conservative and shy of technical innovation; it embraced HD video because it provides an approximation of what they're used to. Once on a panel at Sundance, I asked an obvious question: Why does HD approximate the film standardof 24 fps, or the TV standard of 30fps, when it could just as easily approximate 60 fps? None of the experts had an answer.”

Guess you missed the word "doomed" in the article. I saw Showscan at Nigara Falls back in the early 80's (Niagara Wonders was the film) and it was everything that Ebert claimed - and more.

To try to duplicate that at home would require changing everything in home video; 4:4:4, 12/36 bit color depth, 4K resolution, 48 to 60 FPS, and High Dynamic Range.

3D is popular in the theaters today. For a small amount of money over comparible 2D HDTV equipment, consumers can enjoy what they see in theaters right in their living rooms. Including those that have gone to see live 3D sporting events like basketball games.

You don't want 3D? No problem - don't buy into it. It's that simple.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 26
3/8/10 at 8:13pm
4k 3D will be right behind hd 3-D.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 26
3/8/10 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

4k 3D will be right behind hd 3-D.

No! First 2K_3D, then an annoying and expensive revision to HDMI 1.4 in order to accommodate 7680x4320 resolution -- and then another round of hardware upgrades to get to 4K_3D!
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 26
3/9/10 at 12:39pm
3D - the final frontier. This is the latest trial for electronics consumers, their never-ending mission: to explore strange new stores, to seek out the latest gimmicks and technologies, to boldly go where only early adopters have gone before.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 26
3/10/10 at 9:33am
3D may be the final frontier but how we achieve it could prove interesting? In 20 years?? No glasses, holographic interface w/ability to bring the image as close/behind you as possible, I cant even imagine what sound format they will be using-anyway, my sci-fi fix for the day-I will be too old to enjoy it by then anyway.Ron
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 26
3/10/10 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsnyder005 View Post

3D may be the final frontier but how we achieve it could prove interesting? In 20 years?? No glasses, holographic interface w/ability to bring the image as close/behind you as possible, I cant even imagine what sound format they will be using-anyway, my sci-fi fix for the day-I will be too old to enjoy it by then anyway.Ron

Japan's Super Hi Vision (Ultra HD) may be "the last frontier" with it's 33MP's per frame and 22.2 audio format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision

Then again, it could be Super Hi Vision 3D.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 26
3/10/10 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

To try to duplicate that at home would require changing everything in home video; 4:4:4, 12/36 bit color depth, 4K resolution, 48 to 60 FPS, and High Dynamic Range.

Home TVs and Blu-ray can already do 60 fps. A lot easier than they could do 48 fps.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 26
3/10/10 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Home TVs and Blu-ray can already do 60 fps. A lot easier than they could do 48 fps.

Trying to duplicate Showscan in the home is more than just an increase in the frame rate
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 26
3/10/10 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Trying to duplicate Showscan in the home is more than just an increase in the frame rate

You are right. No need for an increase in frame rate, since TVs can already do 60 fps.

I think 180 to 360 degree or more, real 3D (not stereoscopic) TV at 60 to 300 fps or higher is the future.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 26
3/11/10 at 5:31am
Wouldn't the final frontier be the ability to jack the data directly into our brain, with full sensory input, sight, smell, touch, taste, sound, etc. allowing you to experience the movie in first person of any of the characters as well as third person passively viewing?

My last TV purchase was a 3d ready DLP as I chose not to wait for the neural implant. I'm not sure if there are any harmful effects of too much use of the neural link for entertainment purposes.

And yes, I'm sure this technology will get a big push from the porn industry.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 26
3/12/10 at 7:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsnyder005 View Post

3D may be the final frontier but how we achieve it could prove interesting? In 20 years?? No glasses, holographic interface w/ability to bring the image as close/behind you as possible, I cant even imagine what sound format they will be using-anyway, my sci-fi fix for the day-I will be too old to enjoy it by then anyway.Ron

It may not be that far off, actually. I just got back from a seminar given by a possible future faculty member of the physics department who is doing some very promising and interesting research in optical physics. He has developed a unique method (which he now has a patent for) to create 3d holographic displays, (as well as rewritable holographic media), with almost no volatility, with no color loss. You could literally walk around the holographic image as if were a real object....he called it true 3d. Hopefully he will join our department so I can join the research team.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 26
3/12/10 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypermobius View Post

It may not be that far off, actually. I just got back from a seminar given by a possible future faculty member of the physics department who is doing some very promising and interesting research in optical physics. He has developed a unique method (which he now has a patent for) to create 3d holographic displays, (as well as rewritable holographic media), with almost no volatility, with no color loss. You could literally walk around the holographic image as if were a real object....he called it true 3d. Hopefully he will join our department so I can join the research team.

Sounds similar to the Sony 360 3D Cylinder..."help me Obie..."
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 26
3/12/10 at 8:33am
Stop wasting your hard earned money on 3D. I am saving up for this gadget....for it will be the last frontier..


Reply
Reply
post #21 of 26
3/12/10 at 12:16pm
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 26
3/12/10 at 3:57pm
In all seriousness, we are closer than most think. If the military and gamers every got together more often than they currently do, we would have a new generation of viewing in less than 10 years.

Gamers have thier goggles.



The Marine Corps and the Office of Naval Research have openned an "immersive" training simulator. Perhaps the closest thing the infantry has to a Star Trek-style holodeck. "Fire teams or squads will participate within a 3-D video game of urban-battlefield streets in life-size combat driven by video-game simulations and interactive technologies that are more realistic and adaptable and easily incorporated into training facilities."



We have seen the evolution of Wireless Immersive MultiMedia Information System (WIMMIS).



Why mess with glasses, goggles and thin-film displays when you can affix said display direct to your eyeball?



At this pace it may be with in five years....production facility engineers need to get busy to catch up.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 26
3/12/10 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


Obviously you are aware that parts of Brainstorm were actually filmed in Showscan. It was supposed to be the first full length motion picture using the format. Most of the movie was to appear as a standard 35mm print, but then when the characters donned the headsets, it would switch to the 70mm 60 frames per second Showscan format. Since a projector couldn't change formats on the fly, the entire movie would have to be printed on the Showscan format, which means the 35mm film would be printed with 3:2 pulldown. The movie was never released this way since it was way too expensive for theater owners to upgrade to large format high frame rate Showscan. I saw several demonstrations of Showscan, and almost everyone that I was with agreed that the faster frame rate actually made the film look more like "live video"---otherwise known as the soap opera effect--and the shear size and high resolution made it look almost like you were there.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 26
3/18/10 at 7:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypermobius View Post

It may not be that far off, actually. I just got back from a seminar given by a possible future faculty member of the physics department who is doing some very promising and interesting research in optical physics. He has developed a unique method (which he now has a patent for) to create 3d holographic displays, (as well as rewritable holographic media), with almost no volatility, with no color loss. You could literally walk around the holographic image as if were a real object....he called it true 3d. Hopefully he will join our department so I can join the research team.

Also take a listen to this. At least I'll have 10 years to save up for 3D hologram display.

http://twit.tv/htg12
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 26
3/18/10 at 12:22pm
I seriously doubt there will ever be a "last frontier". Too many people and companies make money by making sure there isn't.

Heck, the amount of money made just by recycling old content to a new format is staggering.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 26
3/18/10 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fire407 View Post

Obviously you are aware that parts of Brainstorm were actually filmed in Showscan. It was supposed to be the first full length motion picture using the format. Most of the movie was to appear as a standard 35mm print, but then when the characters donned the headsets, it would switch to the 70mm 60 frames per second Showscan format. Since a projector couldn't change formats on the fly, the entire movie would have to be printed on the Showscan format, which means the 35mm film would be printed with 3:2 pulldown. The movie was never released this way since it was way too expensive for theater owners to upgrade to large format high frame rate Showscan. I saw several demonstrations of Showscan, and almost everyone that I was with agreed that the faster frame rate actually made the film look more like "live video"---otherwise known as the soap opera effect--and the shear size and high resolution made it look almost like you were there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_(1983_film)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Is 3-D the last frontier?