Will 3D Be Entertaining or Sickening?
 

An interesting article from Broadcast Engineering about how 3D affects people physiologically.

"ABC News blogger Mike Pesce predicted that one of two things will happen with the recent interest in 3-D technology for the home: Either the fad will quickly disappear from the market, or we’ll soon see the biggest class-action lawsuit in history as millions realize that 3-D TV permanently ruined their depth perception."

?Not (3-D TV) tonight, dear; I have a headache? | BE on 3-D

Dan Brockett

I hope the 3D fad dies a quick death.

Hollywood is embracing 3D because it increases profit (higher ticket prices, less piracy). Electronics manufacturers like the thought of selling everyone more gear.

But I don't think it's essential, or ofttimes even beneficial, to good storytelling. Sure, there are a handful of $300 million exceptions (Avatar), but for the most part 3D is a distraction.

It is amazing to me that they are trying this again as it has failed in the past. Like HD is the cure for everything.

I don't want to watch things in 3D. It just looks greedy to me as many people are finally getting around to or just upgraded to HD. I guess they are trying to get in on those who have not purchased yet thinking it will be the last TV upgrade for a long time in peoples' houses.

It would seem to me that 3D is best for theaters and not the in-home experience. But they don't ask me.

Personally I think it is okay for specialist programming. I don't wish it a total death, but God help us if it becomes an every day mainstream thing. I want video making to become more creative, not more technical.

I'm also puzzled, given that many clients are really trying to drive prices down, whether many will really pay more for 3D? Look at how the BBC has slashed funding even for their most popular (and profitable) TV shows such as Doctor Who and Top Gear.

Done in a subtle way, 3D can be interesting.
I was watching a programme recently on archaeological discoveries. In one sequence, the camera was shooting over the shoulder of an archaeologist who was clearing the dust and sand away from some dinosaur bones. I felt that I was there, taking part in the excitement of the moment.
I don't want to see knives or other objects being thrown out of the screen at me - that's such a banal use of the medium.
Another observation regarding screen size: watching 3D on a 36" domestic tv had me going up to the screen as if it was a window; I needed to see more through the window-frame as it were, so there's certainly a case for larger screens fora more immersive experience.

My experience with Avatar was not very positive. The first time, being short sighted and wearing glasses I couldn't focus with both my eye-wear and the 3D glasses on. I left and came at a later day with contact lenses. Even then, the experience wasn't much better. Sometimes I was distracted, some other times I had problems focusing, although nothing near to the first experience. And walking away, although enjoyed the movie, I had a small headache. Maybe, I'm not the average viewer, but unless they develop a stereoscopic medium without glasses, I don't find any merit in the proccess, apart from above mentioned financial reasons (higher ticket prices, inability to copy, unique experience compared to home viewing).

Reading the article in the BE, I was happy to found that I'm not alone.

As of 3D TV, apart from the smallness of the screen, which in my opinion nullifies the very core of the experience, I don't think that benefits in any way the majority of TV programming. I don't believe/hope it will catch on, unless of course there is a plan to turn us into hallucinating zombies (ok that's conspiracy theory but I can't help myself thinking in a dystopian way nowadays).

I think the gamers will be the real beneficiaries of the 3d thing. It will really enhance their virtual worlds. Certainly don't want it for the nightly news though.

It seems as if I'm one of the few that hopes everything goes 3D.

I haven't even switched to blu ray, or plan to any time soon. Now they want us to go 3d.

Not interested.

But then, can't that argument be also used for 2D?

3D isn't something that I want to spend more money on unless the film is epic (read Avatar class)

I'm happy though because 3D TV means that excellent quality 2D only TV will come down in price very quickly.

Just got back from Las Vegas and NAB, where 3D is making a big splash. I'm sorry, but I don't get it. First of all is the issue with having to wear glasses. The other part is that is makes everything you watch look like animation. There are some things that really look cool, but overall I find it nothing more than a (not so cheap) trick. And at times it does mess with your head and things seem to swim. Sony had a giant screen with 3d and there were moire type patterns everywhere and little dots of twitching, terrible looking video. I also hope it dies a quick death. Cool for some movie effects, an unwanted, unneeded, not-that-great-looking "feature" for TV. And let's not talk about the manufacturers wanting us to buy all new equipment, again...

Just my $.02.

Film makers are not usually the first to embrace new tech. But even the general public, since Vincent Price's 1953 3D horror classic "House of Wax" has there been one bit of interest in 3D until "Avatar." Will it be remembered as a great movie, or as a gimmick? I don't know except this, wearing 3D glasses or sitting at narrow angles to get the effect is not going to be acceptable in the long run. And no technology seems better than 3D at making a large screen television seem small and boxy. With content slow to arrive, I don't see it catching on. My $0.02

Interesting persepctive from Mark Kermode here titled "No, your eyes aren't deceiving you – 3D really is a con"

No, your eyes aren't deceiving you ? 3D really is a con | Mark Kermode | Comment is free | The Observer

That was an interesting perspective, agreed. I had no idea they could stereoscope 2d movies. First colorization, now this.