History agrees. Where there's a big enough market, there are corporations willing to take that market's money. The assumption you are making is that the market for 2D TV will cease to exist or at least shrink to insignificance. I think that's an unwarranted assumption considering that 15% of the population has actual physical problems (headaches, nausea, etc.) with 3D. And the even larger percent who favor 2D from an aesthetic standpoint.

So yeah, I'm assuming there will be alternatives.

An interesting prediction. But wrong as explained above. I won't be buying any technology that gives me headaches. Not going to happen. Why would you think it would? You probably think that I'm buying cable/satellite access too, and you'd be wrong about that also. I'm an OTA and Netflix guy. Because there are always alternatives, even to cable and satellite companies.

You are right about that. If it's 3D or nothing, I'll take nothing. But I don't think the 2D market will be under served.

I'm not a "hater" and I resent your accusing me of such. I'm merely asserting my preference for 2D technology and refuting your assertion that I'll be forced to buy something I don't want. Your reaction to my preference makes me think that you feel threatened by my position. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but it won't change my mind.

Take a look at the adoption curve for BR, even after the demise of HD-DVD. The hardware and software is still "coming down" to where it MIGHT make sense to buy to replace an aging DVD player or movie. There's no way you can miss that the higher resolution looks subjectively better, and that it's a better picture... but how many people are perfectly happy with their DVDs? I'm buying movies in the multi-format pack, where the BR disk is basically "free" with the SD version... only have a BR player in a laptop...

And while BR is becoming more noticeable as a market segment, I think it's safe to say that until BR hardware and software come close to parity with regular old DVD, it's not going to "dominate". Same goes for "3D", only moreso, as there is not nearly as compelling an advantage, and there ARE negatives.

Average consumer guy will walk into the Big Blue Box, maybe sit down at the 3D demo display, OOOH and AAAH, then look at the premium and walk over to find something else if he needs to buy - 3D is a SMALL fraction of the sets currently available, and just because something is "all the rage" (hype), doesn't mean it resonates with the buyers, or their currently thin wallets.

If next year 70-80% of the sets are 3D, with little or no premium on the price (and it might help to have 3D WITHOUT goofy glasses), THEN you'll see it become "standard" - but you'll notice that with the falling prices of LCD's (they are now "commoditized", not "premium"), the manufacturers are desperate to find a "new" hook - 3D is as good as any, maybe toss in a 4th pixel, make it super flat, roll up, ANYTHING to make the consumer willing to part with more $$$ than just picking the "big Tee Vee on sale over there".

Just like Sony has tried to create a "premium" for BR, and so sees slow market adoption, 3D will suffer the same fate, at the hands and hopes of "marketing" which sees a "cash cow", whether there is one or not.

IMO, this too shall pass. Let me know when "holo-TV" gets here... 3D will definitely be "out" then!

While BluRay is visibly better than DVDs, streaming "HD" movies at typical data dates of 2-4 MBps AVCHD are also better than DVDs and even better than many BRs. "Beowulf and Grendel" is one of my favorite movies, but its BluRay transfer is mushy and easily exceeded by quality of most Netflix streaming HD TV series.

I really enjoyed Avatar in 3D BUT it can be distracting. I didn't get a headache but some things to me stood out as anachronistic. Depth of field for example. Watch the scene where the wheelchair bound Sam Worthington/Jake Sully with the poor US accent (would it have been such a big story twist to make him an Aussie?) is reporting on the Pandora natives into his funky video blogger. In 3D the narrow depth of field in this scene is really distracting. At the angle of view the human eye would see this whole scene in focus in a real 3D world, yet the monitor is out of focus while Jake is in. - so the illusion of depth is ruined when 3D depth actually exists. So it seems the drive in 3D should be for long focal depth. Throw away your depth of field adapters I say! Smaller sensors are in. I

I guess the point is that a 3D film in 2D is a compromise and vica versa. They are not 100% interchangeable. I jut read more of this thread and see Jon Fairhurst has already pointed this out - oh well, can't hurt to have two on the same bandwagon...

3D is fine but it is a bit of shame that the biggest breakthrough in display technology OLED has been cast aside in favour of the 3D marketing exercise. OLED promises the sharpness and size of LCD (once they sort out the manufacturing kinks) with the depth of colour and blacks of CRT.

OLED will now have to wait in turn for 3D to penetrate and saturate the market. 3D is actually a much cheaper and more accessible technology, a sexier marketing tool, so it come as no real surprise that it has jumped to the head of the queue.

The 3D phase won't last long. I don't know why the industry is throwing so much money into it. I have no desire to see movies in 3D (I'm partially colorblind in one eye, so I can't really see it anyway). Sure, it's "neat" now, but people will get bored with it fast.

I don't see 3D lasting past 2011, if that long.

They should just tick with 3D for the rides at amusement parks, and that's it.

Up until this weekend, when I visited the Annecy Film Festival, I was very cynical of the motives for 3d and really believed that it was a fad that would pass. However, I was lucky enough to go to the screening and discussion of Pixars new short Day & Night. Apart from being a brilliant little film, as always, it completely changed my opinion on how 3D can be used as a valid part of the creative process and in this case, move the story forward.

Director Teddy Newton gave an interesting talk on the processes and changes in thinking that they had to go through to make the film. But also, Pixars Bob Whitehill, gave a very enlightening talk on 3D playing a small but important role within the pipeline, along with animation, lighting etc. Rather than it being a process that is tagged on the end. A large focus of this, was to try and steer away from the old idea of going for the obvious 3D tricks and keep depth perception in 3D space to a minimum.

The film revolves around 2 traditional hand drawn characters, Day & Night, who both see the differences in the 3D worlds within themselves. It will open this weekend with Toy Story 3. IMO it works and is very different than I've seen 3D before. I found myself wanting to reach down into the frame, rather than the elements of the frame reaching out to me and it was a far more comfortable experience.

The question may be if the current 3D process works better with animation than live action drama?

I think currently it's probably tilted in favour of animation. I might be reading too much into this, but my take on this film, was that Pixar are showing it's possible to make a 3D film, which doesn't suffer from a lot of the motion judder normally associated with 3D. Because the action takes place within the frame of each character, there are very few shots where there is frame judder, which is a very real problem for 3D action.
So perhaps they're making a statement, with a concept, about the viability of 24fps 3D production, against the push for a 48fps projection rate. Obviously this has major consequences for animation, whether it's increased render time or more work in hand drawn or stop motion.

3D 'works better' with animation because the reality of the 3D effect is that it is modest to negligible for most shots ... but animation allows for the use of 'invented' points of view and the use of a fake but impressive 3D effect.

Walk around with one eye covered -- that is life in 2D, and it looks remarkably like the world with both eyes in use ... 3D is a fad, one that has been hauled out to 'save' Hollywood before, and one that is no closer to becoming mainstream than the last time. It is quite simply not that significant an effect, and worth nothing like the cost to consumer or the effort to producers required to make this something other than a minor niche.

I suspect that the gaming community will encourage this effect as they live in a world of animation (and un-reality) -- but for film and television production .... don't bet the farm.

Cheers,
GB

Bruce, I'm not trying to tell you you have to watch 3D! All I'm saying is that all the TVs will be 3DTV, you can still watch 2D on them, just like you can watch B&W and silent films. the 3DTV supports both markets happily. Pricewise, 3DTV is a slight premium over a high end 2D TV, but in a couple years there is no reason for them not to be priced evenly. At that point, why would manufacturers keep making 2DTV? Everyone should be able to be happy. Especially the 200,000,000 fanboys, err.... people who want to buy Avatar 3D.

I don't know why you'd think I'd be interested in your cable choices, but Netflix is awesome, glad to hear you use them.

I'm just using the term "hater" in context of it seems that you hate 3D. Nothing else is implied if there are other meanings where you live. I'm not threatened by your position... unless your brother/sister/father/mother happens to run the anti-3D mafia, in which case I'll be in hiding soon.

Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?

I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.

Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)

But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.

<Well, except the fact that you can walk into a store and buy a 3DTV right now at a very small premium over a comparable high end HDTV. That is slightly closer to mainstream, don't you agree?>

When Hollywood plays the 3D card in the theatre -- from the fifties to today -- they charge the same price for 3D, no premium ... which makes it mainstream. Doesn't make it dominant, or ubiquitous -- but it is affordable in theatres anyway. Everytime.

<I do agree it isn't worth the production cost (except in rare cases) in terms of story. Of course we're still fairly early into "modern" 3D production. Once Sony and Panny are both in the 3D video camera game in the $10-$20k range, 3D production will explode. Once it becomes standard, there will be little difference in cost.>

You are only talking about shooting here, there is an entire post & distribution end that will have costs. But what I meant to refer to was the increased effort required, at all levels of production -- even the big films like Avatar are only, IMHO, marginally good at mastering the editing of 3D. There are jumps and awkward cuts that would be completely unacceptable in 2D ... but the poor editor of the 3D version is stuck with trying to master transitions that are happening in 3 dimensions -- frame boundaries in all directions, what a pain!

<Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :) >

You said it brother.

<But once it trickles down to parents being able to shoot 3D video of their kids, it's here to stay. That's probably the easiest sales pitch ever.>

There have been any number of useful and inexpensive developments that failed, even in the video world. VHS HiFi stereo was immensely better than VHS mono, and significantly better than VHS linear stereo ... and yet it didn't catch on. Consumers continued to buy mono, and manufacturers shrunk their line-up to meet consumer demand. Same with S-VHS, and VHS HQ -- though the benefits were less apparent than HiFi stereo, consumers didn't bite.

And that is my real point -- frankly, 3D is not all that thrilling for most stuff. It is barely thrilling for grandiose Hollywood product designed around it ... more people will watch Avatar in 2D on a television than will ever see it in 3D in the theatre.

3D will die, again, because it is more hype than happening in most situations. And it isn't going to be worth the expense to all concerned, from consumer to producer, to pursue it. So enjoy the little flurry in the theatre, especially for those productions that actually benefit (Toy Story 3D maybe..?), don't spend the college fund on a 3D television for the rec room, and watch the 3D channels whither on the vine.

JMHO

GB

Wait, what? There's absolutely a premium charge on 3D films (at least where I am). Cineplex is charging $12ish for a regular ticket,$15ish for 3D.

Anyway, I'm still not sure why you think we aren't closer to 3D now, what with 3DTVs, 3D video cameras, 3D still cameras, 3D laptops, 3D video games and actually half decent 3D production capabilities at a reasonable price. Consider the only people who had legit 3D capabilities were major studios, you have to admit we are at least a LITTLE closer to mainstream 3D than 50 ago?

As for 3D post production, I shot a short film in 3D 3 months ago and (granted it was short) the post production wasn't that difficult, and was no additional cost (besides the editor's time).

The theatre complex near me charges the same for 3D as they do for IMAX, which is to say the four big screens cost a buck or two more than the twelve lesser screens ... but it is a modest difference, not a deal breaker for anyone.

But you are correct and I would be churlish if I didn't agree that the prices are lower to the consumer than anytime in the past, and technologies accessible in a way that was never available before.

In the end though ... it just isn't engaging enough to be more than a fad is my point.

Cheers,
GB

I feel ripped off... we pay the same for 3D whatever screen it's on...
I'll make it back by selling clients on 3D production services (while I can if everyone is right and I'm wrong). :)

Probability that "3D" will be the "big hype" in technology for a few more months, at least through Christmas 2010 - 100%

Probability that most of us, myself included, will spend at least SOME $$$ on "3D something or another" somewhere along the way - 100% (my kids like the 3D bonus "Bob's Big Break" bonus from Monsters v Aliens, I think it looks horrid)

Probablity that "this time it's different" - how many zeros after that decimal point?

Probablity that "joe sixpack" will be shooting the kids in 3D, making granny ill when showing the footage - somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%... leading to:

Probability that "joe" will be shooting more 3D - pretty small...


The news is already covering the petri dish of noxious organisms on those goofy glasses (even the ones in the wrappers supposedly sanitized), the reports of actual physical adverse effects from 3D viewing are popping up quite a lot, and "terrible" content can't be a long term "bonus".

To make 3D work:
1) Get rid of the glasses (Fuji has something in this department)
2) Figure out how to make it 100% accessible
3) Make the content compelling (I'm intrigued by what Pixar might be up to, but I like animation anyway)

Any of those 3 falls short... and another "fad" bites the dust, I don't care HOW much marketing $$$$ gets thrown at it. PT Barnum had it about right.

I like toys and new tech, but I've seen plenty come and go (and people make money in the process) - I don't see the "staying power" behind a technology that causes physical discomfort for some viewers, and makes you use goofy glasses... sorry, not convinced.

"Of course, like someone else said, most of it will be terrible. :)"

This is probably the bottom line. Especially for home use, I still think that 3D is marketing hype and while the kit might be available, I don't want to sit at home and watch the likes of badly shot reality tv in 3D or home movies. This bad viewing experience is what could kill the format in it's early days.

When it comes to film production though, I do think Pixar are leading the way again here. As most big budget action films contain a large amount of CG elements, I'm now sure it's possible to make even more engaging content in this medium, with the appropriate production design, lighting, cinematography etc.

I'd imagine the 3D capable TVs will operate the same way HD capable televisions do with many, perhaps even most, people just watching SD programmes on them.

PAL looks pretty good on a HD set, assuming you don't go for too large a screen size for the viewing distance.

These TVs could, in the end, be mostly used for the new generation of 3D games in the living room environment. These are intended to be more communal that the up the the bedroom games

I think that was me. It reminds me of the digital revolution . Suddenly anyone with a still or video camera could be a "pro" and the bottom dropped out of the market. It takes years for people to realize that cheap but capable equipment is no replacement for the ability to use it.

I think 3D doesn't have a chance until it's easier to digest. No consumer is going to shoot 3D until he can point a camera at his subject, and a 3D DVD craps out the back end. I already do not know one person (who isn't a pro) who edits his home shot material. And that's 2D.

And I still think the timing is wrong because everyone just upgraded to HD sets. How many people, myself included, are going to upgrade again so quickly? Not that many. Think about how long you had your last CRT set. They lasted forever, and I don't have any reason to change my plasma, which is a beautiful unit, for years.

Yes, I agree that there will be a slow adoption of 3D sets if there is no price premium, and they enter the home as people upgrade normally, etc. But that doesn't mean they will be used for 3D. My plasma has a very capable and customizable PIP ability, but I've not used it even once. I'm not interested.

Dave:

The only 3D film I have seen in the past year was Avatar. I paid my money, watched the film and the very next morning, I woke up with the worst case of Conjunctivitis my doctor or I had ever seen. My mom was a nurse and I know what causes Conjunctivitis and I have never had it in my four decades. We both figured it was from the 3D glasses. The glasses for Dolby 3D are kind of thick and chunky and when pressed to your face, portions of the glasses sit amazingly close to your tear ducts in the corner of your eyes.

Last 3D experience I will ever have without alcohol swabbing to disinfect the glasses myself.

It was horrible and lasted about five days. Beware that most theaters don't do anything with the glasses than collect them and hand them out again to the next show's audience.

Dan

3D may be dangerous to your vision
 

The 3D partisans should find this story interesting. Turns out that there have already been studies done that show that 3D gaming and TV viewing leads to strabismus. Children under seven are especially at risk. But even adults are at risk if they watch enough 3D.

I don't much care for 3D for aesthetic reasons. But now I wonder if the industry hasn't shot itself in the foot with this headlong rush into 3D.

That story is freaking me out Bruce.

Dan

Me, too.

I actually remember those VR helmets being announced as the next big thing, thinking they were a cool idea, and then wondering what happened to them.

Sounds like the slight headache I get a 3D movies is something to avoid for sure.

I can take or leave 3D. I have low vision but still get the effect. I prefer a well done movie rather than something that has gimmicks to make it different than the home experience. I keep thinking Jaws when I think 3D.

For me, the experience of a theater is the experience. When a theater is nearly filled and the crowd is engaged in a great movie, that is a "Theather" experience.

Hopefully, the 48 fps format that someone mentioned early will take the place of 3D. That would be like going from VHS to DVD and then Blueray. That combined with a great movie that generates a great crowd would be my theater experience.

Jeff

Even though it has been talked about and pushed for years, I have doubts if 48fps will ever see the light of day as a popular shooting and projection format. 3D is visually loud, gimmicky and spectacular, all of the things Hollywood likes. Hollywood doesn't do subtle and 48fps would be considered by exhibitors and a large percentage of the public to be subtle.

It's just like when Blu-ray came out. Something like 70% of viewers couldn't tell the difference between Blu-ray and an upconverted NTSC or PAL DVD. If people pay extra for something, they expect to be hit over the head with the "improvement".

Dan

When I went to see Avatar and Alice In Wonderland in 3D, I was constantly just distracted by the 3D effect. It didn't pull me into the movie, it did the opposite. All the people I have been talking to (and literally, all of them) didn't like it either. Everyone I talk to about go seeing a movie in 3D, they all now say: "Meh, I don't like the whole 3D kind of thing".

A week ago I went to see Toy Story 3. In 2D. What a great film. I had no distractions at all, bright colors, and the movie effected me enormously. Because I wasn't wearing any glasses or seeing all kinds of innaproperiate effects, I could also just focus on the story and the emotions.
Glad I saw it in 2D.

Please Hollywood, stop this 3D madness.

Here are some 3D TV issues:

BBC News - Quality warnings issued over 3DTV

All this negativity is going to drastically hinder the holodeck development process. Is that what you want?

I'd assume that would use a totally different technology to 3D TV.

But if the powers that be feel that we're all satisfied with our simple two dimensions, they're never going to work to give us a third, and the tactile feel. MMMM. . .tactile.

YouTube - Virtual 3D Tactile Touch - NTT COMWARE : DigInfo

Or are you thinking of a full suit??

I was just being a jackass. In addition to being 3D, what separates the holodeck from a 2D experience is that the image has substance. . .you can touch/interact, etc. That's what I was getting at.

I guess that would depend if it was virtual substance that give the transparent appearance of real substance.

The one time Ebert agrees with me :D

Re: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

And here we are now Dan :) 3D films haven't gone away, the hype has slowed somewhat but IMO films and the medium is being refined as producers come to grips with it.

Here the sales of domestic 3D TVs have slowed but 3D live sports TV telecasts are growing slowly. Maybe keeping up with the competition. 3D games too.

Cheers.

Re: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

I am the wrinkly generational exception. I do like the 3D experience "IF" it is done well. Being the fussy wretch I am, I take the time to find the row of seats in the cinema with the natural human field-of-view relationship with the screen. I then shift about until I get the audio balance good and mark that as my own personal spot and get there early enough to claim it.

In this spot, the Avatar 3D was fine for me. If there was a poisoned dog which should go all loopy with 3D imaging, it has to be me. I am short-sighted, have age-related visual deterioration, slightly red-green colourblindness, am wrong eye dominant and am about 15db down in the right ear.

Re: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

Here's a nice article about 3D by Alexis van Hurkman, colorist:

I Don’t Hate Stereoscopic Films | Alexis Van Hurkman ? Thinking Aloud

Re: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

Re: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

That's too bad. I watched an Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) event in a theater in 3D. Other than the "over-3D" titling, 3D was overall gentle and enhanced the experience despite the need for glasses.