Bob.

I don't think 2D theatre will take off....their performance was a little flat.

I simply can't see how 3D TV will really take hold, not in it's current form.

I lived through the 3-D frenzy of the 50s. I still have a 3-D camera, projector, reticular screen, and glasses (polarized) and hand held viewer. One of the key problems with the process was the interocular distance between the two images. I think it is fair to say no two people's pupils are spaced apart (interocular distance) are exactly the same. For those folks who's pupils are not the same as the images projected will feel eye strain. For example, one of the adjustments on my 3-D projector was the interocular distance between the two images on the screen. I could move the images apart and together and one image up and other other image down. If the viewer was watching the adjustment with the ploarized glasses, the left eye sees only the left image and the right eye see only the right image. You can imagine the eye strain when you move the left eye up and the right eye down or the both eyes out or both eyes in. People would turn green. No matter how carefully you adjust the setup it will not be correct for everyone and just about everyone will have varying degrees of eye strain and view time will be limited. Until this problem is solved 3D will go the way of it's predecessors.

Ed

I simply can't see how 3D TV will really take hold, not in it's current form.

I'd say recent (5 years) history would defend that: viewing tech switched, media tech switched, now it's switching again only a few years after people bought all the stuff a few years ago. No particular reason 3d tech wouldn't change to something else in the next three years.

"No particular reason 3d tech wouldn't change to something else in the next three years."

My thinking exactly.

Ed makes some good points, too.

Also, think how many people in the past five years dropped a small bundle for their HDTVs. Now their wanting these same people to dump those HDTVs and run out and buy 3D TVs?

I don't see it happening.

Woody Hays says "three yards and a cloud of dust". The big TV guys say "three years and another tv".
JJK

We need to be careful not to confuse the technology with what it delivers. There's still people making excellent B&W movies, even the odd silent one. They can still be projected in a cinema with the gear to show 3D or watched at home on a 3D TV.
Also don't confuse technology that enhances with technology that adds a new dimension. The former does tend to make the old obsolete, the later gives new forms of artistic expression. For example audio tape was clearly a better way to record audio than the earlier wire recorders or wax cylinders. On the other hand surround sound adds a new dimension to audio reproduction. it hasn't made stereo obsolete.
I'm pretty certain 3D imaging will be the same. It will not make 2D obsolete, it'll just be another dimension that can be used for artistic expression, hopefully only where appropriate.

Bob.

No confusion here.

I simply don't see that 3D is better or enhances anything, again, in it's current form.

Yes, 2D can been seen on a 3D set, however, the converse is not true. Hence, the comment on ditching a 2D set only a few years old for a new 3D set. I don't see that 3D offers anything profound enough to warrant such an expense for the vast majority of consumers (based experience with clients, friends, and family). The economy here in the US ain't what it used to be.

Surround sound and 3D are apples and oranges. Surround sound is real. As it stands now, 3D is only an effect, compared to surround sound. We can, literally, be in surround sound; we can't be in a 3D image. It's still a 2D image with a 3D effect, when it's all said and done.

"I simply don't see that 3D is better or enhances anything, again, in it's current form"

I totally agree. It adds a new dimension.

"Surround sound is real. As it stands now, 3D is only an effect, compared to surround sound. We can, literally, be in surround sound; we can't be in a 3D image. It's still a 2D image with a 3D effect, when it's all said and done."

That's not true. You're confusing both 3D imagining and surround sound with Virtual Reality technology. Even stereo recordings are not the same as dummy head recordings. Stereo does not provide the data to our ears needed for sound localisation. To get a true real sound field you need to wear headphones AND use a different recording technique. 5.1 simply adds more of the same "effect" but it's nothing at all like what we experience in the real world. You cannot move towards a rear speaker, if you do, goodbye sound field. Search the "cocktail party effect" to understand the difference.

Bob.

I'm specifically referring to the technology. All the technological breakthroughs you're mentioning (audio tapes, stereo & surround) didn't occur within a few years, it took decades. This happened within a few years. It's closer to EGA & VGA graphics or CFL's & LED's bulbs. Both came out around the same time frame & obviously one was far superior to the other, but the first one was out long enough for people to buy in to & the people who bought the slightly older tech didn't run out & replace perfectly working pieces of technology right away because something better came out.

Yeah, odds are in 10-15 years when my LCD TV dies (at earliest) I'll replace it with whatever's out there then (could be 3D), but as of right now, I'd say it was a stupid move. This should of been either planned out to happen during the DTV transition or ~6/7 years after when people see the advantages of digital. Many people still don't notice the difference unless it's pointed out to them & they only noticed the negatives.

"You should also note that the glasses limit where you'll want to set up the TV, at least for optimum viewing. The glasses didn't work well under fluorescent lighting; I noticed an obvious and annoying flicker. And when I had bright light behind me, I noticed some glare on the inside surfaces of the glasses.

Samsung also lists a number of precautions about the glasses. The manual says, 'Please note if you watch 3D TV for too long while wearing 3D glasses, you may experience headaches or fatigue," and warns that "pregnant women, people with heart issues or become easily nauseous, as well as persons with epilepsy should not watch 3D videos.' "

Samsung is warning off everyone who has any vertigo issues (hence elderly and/or drunk), tendency to nausea (early pregnancy and/or drunk), susceptible to excitement (heart), susceptible to migraine and other vision triggered health problems, and those who like to watch a lot of TV. That should enhance their sales figures.

Bob, you've overshot the mark. You CAN stand/sit in the center of surround sound and have a 3D sound experience (in a theatre that sound field is considerably bigger). Such is not the case in a 3D film/TV situation. Regardless of the screen's size--50 inches or 50 feet--one cannot look around an object, look to the sides or rear.

Although, using your comparisons, I would say visual 3D is more akin to stereo sound.

serena, that's a good list of "warnings" there. :D I think there's the same thing for a roller coaster. Is there a height limit too? :D

"Although, using your comparisons, I would say visual 3D is more akin to stereo sound."

It's way more than akin. It is the same thing!

We have two ears, each of which hear slightly different signals, and by which we can distinguish direction and distance of the object making the sound. We have two eyes, which see slightly different signals, and by which we can distinguish direction and distance of the object reflecting/emitting light. In stereo (3D) sound this effect is simulated with two microphones and two speakers. In 3D (stereo) video this effect is simulated with two cameras and two projected/displayed images.

A while back someone in this forum posted that 3D video isn't real because you can't walk around the image and look at it from another point of view, and therefore is completely useless. While that person's premise is correct, the conclusion is very wrong. Consider these points:

1) Watching a football game in real life is obviously a 3D experience. And yes, i suppose technically you could get up and move around and see the game from alternate points of view, but do you? Don't you, for the most part, sit in the seat you bought a ticket for? Would someone who didn't move around say that watching the game live was worthless?

2) The movie producers know that seeing things from various angles is a good experience. They choose which angles to show you to enhance the story. They don't have the bandwidth available to feed you every possible angle all the time to allow you to make the choice as you wish (ok, maybe someday we'll get holographic TV), so they do a very good job of choosing for you. Funny thing is, this is *exactly* the same in 2D movies as it is in 3D. Does anyone say 2D movies are worthless because we can't chose the camera angle? Go figure.

1&2) So watching a football game at home in 3D may actually be a better experience because you'll get to see various angles as the producers pick which camera is showing the most interesting view. They can show you a dozen different excellent views, some even in close up, in a few moments. Try to do that by moving your body around at the stadium, and you'll either wear yourself out or get arrested for interfering with the players.

3) In stereo sound, which was what brought a lifelike quality to recorded music listening, we can't get up and move around and hear the music from a different perspective either. Our auditory perspective was chosen for us in advance by the recording engineers and our "field of hearing" is limited the same way that our field of view is limited with 3D video.

4) Some folks complain that 3D video isn't truly immersive like stereo sound is. But this has nothing to do with 2D/mono vs. 3D/stereo. In any case, sound is always more immersive because it flows around us and we're aware of it from any direction, even when it's mono. On the other hand, vision is always forward focusing, and even in real life we only see what's in front of us, in the direction we're looking, from whatever our current point of view is. IMAX may seem more immersive than television simply because it extends closer to the limits of our field of view, but this is true whether it's 3D or not. Next time you go to the movies sit in the front 3 rows and you'll be more immersed in a 2D image than if you watched 3D from the back of the theater.

The TVs on offer at the moment are of limited screen size (50-60 inches.) There is nothing to prevent the use of projectors and really large screens using the electronic shutter glasses. The bigger the screen, the greater the effect.

Ralph

A friend of mine is a regional manager for SONY and invited me to a special event to watch the masters in 3D last week. It was interesting (and yes, I got a headache - I last 15 minutes with Avatar and had to get out).

That said, it was certainly an interesting experience. What struck me was that the 3D is rather stark...by which I mean, rather than having that continuous sense of depth...it was sort of like watching several layers of 2D. At one hole there was the golfer, then the crowd, and then TV/commentator towers, and then the background. It was an interesting effect, but I had the sense it was an effect (they played a demo reel after the event, and of course, the content, loaded with effects, was excellent.

But I'm not sure what the advantage is. Colour has an advantage over B&W. HD has an advantage over SD. 3D, is still...well, for me, it's still kind of gimicky. I just don't have that sense of "oh my...I can't live without this."

That said, we're at the very leading edge of the very first generation of home 3D of the HD era. The early adopters will pay the price for development, and eventually we'll get something quite different.

I still think the real "oh my...must have" moment will be when 3D video doesn't require glasses. No idea how they'll manage, but I'm sure someone will figure that out.

I had the pleasure of recording & mixing all the music for the world's first 3D IMAX film many years ago, and more lately, Australia's first 3D Cinema film (Canetoads:The Conquest, aka "AvaToad" haha!) - my impressions were that through glasses the cinematic experience was somehow smaller visually compared to 2D, and ultimately we are still watching 'through a window'; multichannel surround audio is indeed a 3D experience, and is still enjoyable even if we are facing the opposite direction; perhaps we won't achieve that with vision until the picture is a 3D hologram.

While a well mixed surround sound track does a good job of simulating a real-world sound field, it is still an approximation (as farss mentioned above); the escalation of the number of channels is a direct indication of that (5.1, 7.2 etc). In the real world we can identify accurately in spherical space where a sound source is located, and we can do this because our ears are not simple microphones. The shape of our ear canals and external flaps (pinna) as well as our heads all modify the sound that reaches our eardrums. A sound from behind has characteristics different to the same sound from in front, and one above is different from one below. These difference characteristics substantially lie in the higher frequencies, so as our hearing deteriorates we become more easily confused about source location (a simple test: close eyes and without moving head point to where you think a partner is rattling a set of keys -- equidistant around an imaginary sphere).
A subject listening with headphones to a stereo recording made with in-ear microphones (their own ears) will have the same directional resolution as in the original situation, but someone else (not having the same head transfer function) will be in error when pointing to the apparent source. However by measuring individual head transfer functions, recordings can be characterised so that individual can correctly identify source orientation. This is being applied to the threat warning systems of military aircraft, to enable a pilot to hear the spatial direction and distance of a threat (via his headphones), so off-loading his already highly taxed visual processing capabilities (keeping visual awareness while interpreting graphic displays). More detail can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-related_transfer_functionhearing transfer function[/link].

edit: I suspect that sound recordists generally neglect phase coherence, balancing multi-miked recordings by level alone. You will hear a much more coherent stereo "sound stage" in a two mike recording than in most commercial recordings. Obviously not easy maintaining phase coherence in multi-miking.

I thought some might find this of interest regarding an ambitious Australian 3D short:Robert Morton on Dead Boring 3D

"Talking with Dave, one of the elements that really impressed him was the simplicity of a clear 3D image and how it took audiences into the film. He felt that in watching a 3D film, it isolated the characters and made audiences feel as though they were watching the fictional characters right in front of them, ultimately giving them more believability and empathy. This all worked so long as the story was working well. Instead of watching a flat pretty picture, you end up watching the characters, not the frame, which is where the drama actually occurs. Furthermore, the greater sense of 3-Dimensionality you get when you see a character’s face smile or cry, we believe makes you emote on a sub-conscious level producing greater empathy for the character if used correctly."


Bob.

and a great headache afterward...

Please, with the mess HD is in do really think 3D has a fighting chance?

Take that a step more with the world economy going under and I don't see any of this nonsense ever taking off.

Couple that with the history of 3D only reaffirms that 3D is dead before it ever get started.

Don't believe all the marketing hype. I just came back from Best Buy's 3D Home Theater Section and the 3D looked terrible. It was right next to the ipad with a million fingerprints smudges on its screen blocking what it was trying to display.

Do engineers even use common sense anymore...?

Do engineers even use common sense anymore...?

IMO, yes.
But then Marketing gets a hold of things and it goes downhill from there :-(

Mike