3D... does anyone care?

Myerz wrote on 11/15/2010, 8:28 PM

So, do you think Sony is wasting thier time with 3D?
I know I'm not going to spend too much time tooling around with it.

Maybe it's all got to do with Sony and the push for 3D televisions.... I think the Vegas developers should concentrate on the expediting the workflow within Vegas rather than catering to a very small fraction of the industry that will more likely fade in a year or two.... 2 cents

Back to post

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/5/2010, 11:01 AM

John, I didn't say 3D television, I said "3D," which, in it's current configuration, has been around for a long, long time. The end result, regardless of the technology on how it's produced/presented, is still the same.

It's okay that you and I disagree about 3D, in it's current configuration. I hope you enjoy your new 3D TV, I honesty do!

Steve Mann wrote on 12/5/2010, 11:54 AM

John, I am with you and Keith. We grok - alone apparently.

Most of the responses to the OP were "all about me". Why the responders don't like 3D, why 3D is crap, why 3D will fizzle, etc.

Which is GREAT.

I probably won't buy a 3D TV for personal use, but I plan to rent a Panasonic 3D camera for a day soon - JUST for the experience. Considering the attitude of the others on this thread, that means that *when* a client can make a case for 3D (like a museum or lobby experience), I will likely be one of few shops with 3D experience.

Thanks, Sony.

GenJerDan wrote on 12/5/2010, 8:35 PM

I've got no desire whatsoever to watch a 3D move on the big or little screen.

But give me a set of "glasses", each of which is a monitor of some sort....that'd work for me.

Hard to projet the focal points out far enough...though I'm sure someone has done it. Yes?

Steve Mann wrote on 12/5/2010, 9:06 PM

Actually, the first 3D that I saw was a pair of tiny CRT's on goggles.
Since they were CRT's, (like the ones in early camcorder viewfinders), you can probably guess how long ago....

GenJerDan wrote on 12/7/2010, 8:13 PM

Come to think of it, it would probably be a VR helmet thingie. Which does exist....or is that only in the movies? :^)

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/8/2010, 5:38 AM

Here ya go, Gen... link.

GenJerDan wrote on 12/9/2010, 3:31 AM

Yeppers. That'll probably do it.

Cool beans.

RalphM wrote on 12/9/2010, 4:50 PM

Been shopping for a new TV - wife says "I don't like the 46 inch - 50 or 55 is nicer (am I a lucky guy or what??).

Buying stuff at Costco and came accross a 3D demo where the glasses were actually avaiable versus having to go find a clerk to unlock the demo case. The demo was pretty neat, but artificial looking - sort of like the 3D comic books of the 50's. I suspect that with time producers will create 3D that is natural looking rather than Gee Whiz! Right now, 3D seems like giving a new video editor a bunch of cool transitions. The results get overused and get cheesy very quickly.

The demo was worth looking at as it convinced me that I had no more interest in 3D (as it now exists) that I've had for the past 50 years.

The kids in the next demo kiosk weere checking out a 3D video game demo. I suspect they are a market.

Must be getting old...

RalphM

hazydave wrote on 12/9/2010, 11:39 PM

Manufacturers are all over 3-D. When that much hardware is available to consumers, consumers want someone who can produce the content. I plan to be ahead of that curve. It is no longer a passing fad. 3D movies and TV now look great.

It does look good. But keep grounded .. no passing fad was a passing fad when popular. Only once passed.

We'll see about 3D, and it might be television that saves it. The problem right now is that 3D is a fad among filmmakers and studios. Which means that many mono films are bring artificially made into stereoscopic (3D). The customer pays extra, and gets crap. "3D" starts to get a bad name. Put football in 3D, shot live, and it could be the next Superbowl must-have (porn may have sold VHS, but Football was the tractor app for HD).

The same thing happened to Quadraphonic audio back in the 70s. It basically got blacklisted to the point it didn't sell... when I was a teenager, I bought a quad amp for far less than a stereo version of the same per-channel power. They were punting.. and it didn't come back until surround sound for film.

The other issue, right now, is that Sony didn't actually deliver a 3D/stereo toolchain, just Vegas. Ok, sure, they also worked on the specs, and did an update to the PS3 to enable it. But DVDA doesn't do 3D Blu-Ray. So promising 3D today requires some unknown extra costs.

view3dtv wrote on 12/10/2010, 1:02 AM

at view3d.tv we've been working in stereoscopic 3D video, CGI, compositing, VR and more since the 90's. It's amusing to see 3D finally go mainstream and for the rest of the world thinking of catching up.....

Daniel

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/10/2010, 6:36 AM

Looking at Daniel's site, I came to two personal realizations...

First, looking at anaglyph images is a challenge for me because my left eye (the red) seems to be stronger than the other. I have to "work" at getting both eyes to work equally.

The second is that anaglyph images do not appear to be "3 dimensional", as in real life. Rather they look to me like 2-dimensional cut-outs placed one in front of the other--on different planes. The resulting image is not an accurate representation of what one experiences in real life.

farss wrote on 12/10/2010, 6:56 AM

"The second is that anaglyph images do not appear to be "3 dimensional", as in real life. Rather they look to me like 2-dimensional cut-outs placed one in front of the other--on different planes. The resulting image is not an accurate representation of what one experiences in real life."

Anaglyph is a very poor way to present 3D. The cardboard cutout issue isn't directly related to how it is presented, you can get that with any 3D presentation, it gets back to how it was shot, "roundess" is a common topic of discussion amongst the guys shooting 3D.

Bob.