Forget stereo 3D, holographic 3D is the future
 

Despite a relatively tepid consumer take-up, the buzz surrounding 3D television is still quite intense. But even the viewing improvements offered by stereoscopic technology may pale by comparison to the holographic goings-on at MIT. Researchers are taking the first steps toward making holographic technology a reality for consumers. Using primarily off-the-shelf components, the team has managed to capture, transmit and display a holographic subject on-the-fly.

More at: Consumer holographic TV creeps closer to reality

Sounds promising until you watch the video...

About the same as the first B&W TV systems that were developed. At least these days we have the technological means to ramp up the resolution very quickly.

Andrew

I am one of those who can't watch 3D without getting dizzy or having a headache. Since I am not an isolate case, as I read in various studies, I have never put any faith in the future of Stereo 3D. Even people who do not experience my problem, do have a problem with the glasses, especially for home viewing. I truly believe that holographic 3D, which may take a decade or more to come to fruition, is the only thing that is going to replace our current viewing experience.

Have you checked yet that your problem with the 3D viewing through glasses isn't an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?

This is one possible reason for a headache, which in turn would be caused by the 3D delivery forcing both eyes to work equally .... forcing the lazy eye to work harder than it is used to.

If it is a lazy eye that is the source of the headaches, then the technology for 3D is actually okay, and the continued viewing of 3D content will actually help you.

Andrew

Interesting response. One inference is that there may be something wrong with people who find viewing 3D content unpleasant or even sickening. No less than Walter Murch, hardly a Luddite, says stereoscopic 3D doesn't and won't ever work (see "Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.").

Is that what Nintendo is using to make that 3D effect happen on their upcoming 3DS handheld system???

Holography is still in the stone age as far as trying to make movies out of it. Even when it becomes practically viable, it will take ages to make it profitable...unless somebody claims it is possible...as in this case: Holographic Cinema, 3D Digital Movies, 3D TV, 3D Advertising, 3D Presentations and 3D Virtual Reality

Hi Lawrence,

Yes, I'm aware of that article and almost got around to posting it. This guy knows his stuff and thinks well.

To me it's a case of there being a few more limitations that you have to work within if you are going to do "correct" 3D work that doesn't alienate the audience courtesy of the technology limitations. (Disclosure: I have no intention of ever producing content in 3D. Might watch a 3D film, though.)

Perhaps not everybody will be able to enjoy viewing 3D movies, but not everybody goes to see movies anyway. On the other hand, if 80% of your regular audience can enjoy 3D and will pay a premium to do so, then the business case for 3D can still win out.

As for having a lazy eye, this is a legitimate possibility and should be ruled out before proceeding on to anything else. There are other issues which can prevent people from 'getting' the 3D experience, but it's less typing if I don't go there right now. :-)

Andrew

for sure it is, but still , maybe not very, but distant from now

So far in the future it looks kinda blurry right now. :-)

Andrew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
stereoscopic 3D doesn't and won't ever work
---------------------------------------------------------------------

People are buying tickets. it IS working. End of story.

It's been about 3 years. 3D is here to stay in theaters (heck the 2nd run dollar theater in my town now has 3-D ). Once it becomes accesible to the average person ($50+ for a pair of glasses is far from affordable) it will become commonplace in the home as well. We may not all like 3D, but its best to understand that this is what people want.

On an artistic level, I'm all about 3D. ANYTHING that can make a film more visually immersive is a valuable tool. The "gimmick appeal" will wear off, and people will come to understand the difference between GOOD 3-D (UP, Avatar) and BAD 3-D (the Last Airbender, Clash of the Titans) and the latter will slowly dissapear, but even when said gimmick wears off, people will still come to expect 3-D for their money.

Avatar is the perfect example. After it came out, it was assumed that ALL movies in 3-D would become more successful. This was not the case (tickets sales in general have had a bit of a downturn lately). As it relates to 3-D movies, i think avatar really just set the "standard" and 3-d movies that dont appraoch that standard are falling to the wayside.

I'd actually love too sit down and look at the profitability of REAL 3-D movies compared to the crappy Clash of the Titans 3-D. How to train your dragon was pretty successful. I may do just that this weekend.

One of the posts in the comments section of that article said it best:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I think there's an intangible reward you experience when you are watching a modern 3-D image and receiving it as intended. It's why we keep watching 3-D movies. Those moments when it works correctly make it worth the effort we've expended. Of course, terrible 3-D movies undermine that reward, bringing us back to the real problem with 3-D movies: bad movies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "price inflation" as an argument against it is hilarious. THINK about how much movie ticket prices skyrocketed in the last 10-15 years, and that was WITHOUT a premium upgrade to the experience like 3-D. I'd blame ticket price inflation more on the general inflation of movie budgets over the last several years.

Now is the time to evolve professionally. I'm trying to familiarize myself as much as possible with 3-D workflows (though I'm admittedly late to the game). Even IF it's a passing trend (which i doubt), I intend to cash in on it as much as I can while I can.

Holographic 3-D is even MORE exciting to me. This is the beginning of freakin' Holodecks!

My cousin was recently asking about 3D technology. He can only see out of one eye. Not a question about a "lazy eye" -- he simply can't see with one and 3D technology isn't going to "help" it back to vision. How is he (and others in his situation) going to watch 3D?

I think we can give your cousin a free pass on this one. It's fairly safe to say that only having the use of one eye is the exception when it comes to the general population.

As my grandmother (totally blind, nada, zip, nothing at all) would readily agree .... blindness really sucks.

There are people with undiagnosed lazy eye syndrome out there and they will encounter difficulty with the 3D technology. Fortunately for them watching 3D content is an excellent way to rectify the imbalance in how the brain processes the content received from each eye.

This isn't to state that anybody who has difficulties with the technology has a lazy eye, but that this is one potential issue and that it may not necessarily be the 3D technology at fault.

Andrew

If you only see out of one eye, you need to wear the glasses as required by the 3D system. Otherwise, you see the right and left images mixed (crosstalk = 100%). Put on the glasses and his sighted eye will see a 2D video.

It won't be as good as watching a 2D movie:
* He needs to wear the glasses
* There will be some crosstalk from the alternate image
* The image isn't as bright (or you burn more power to compensate.)
* The director may have made some artistic compromises for 3D viewing

But it's not like he can't watch and enjoy the content.