^ Fixed it for you :)

I've always doubted 3D would gain serious traction in the consummer space. I may be wrong.
We've got a number of the cheap 3D cameras, just to see what's what with them. Never had a nibble for a long time but in the last few months we're getting people renting them to shoot home movie stuff in 3D.

Bob.

When I finally entered the 21st century, I bought a 3D TV and a 3D capable BD player (sort of future proofing and the $$ difference was not much).

I bought one 3D BluRay video to test the equipment and didn't even finsh watching that after confirming it worked. The glasses look cool though...

The thing with 3d is...you have to have a subject of real interest to you to watch it. There are over 6 broadcast channels of 24/7 3D, not counting youtube 3d. By the end of this year all TV's will be 3d, you'll just have to buy the glasses. Although for most videographers the learning curve is way too steep. As always, good content and the porn industry will come to the rescue. No pun intended.
-john

Don't you think 3d is part of Sony's (and others) desperation to find something new to 'spark' the industry -- film, electronics et al.

It is failing, or at the least will never find broad appeal, IMHO. (and it is offered humbly :-)

What irritates me is all the programming time that went into providing 3D support in Vegas, when obviously the time could be better spent reducing bugs in vers 511!

Yes, we're on the down side of the curve... again.

It seems to me Sony was really putting on a push for 3d. Ironically, it's probably one of the few times that various entities of Sony actually tried getting on the same page.

In the corporate arena, marketing usualy wins.

I consider myself an early adopter of anything electronic and in this field.
I have however stayed away from anything 3D as it just does not interest me particularly when it requires glasses (although it seems they are working on getting them out of the requirements)

But to answer your question Grazie, I do feel we are at the downward trend of it again.

Ted

Yep, it's the glasses. Each person needs a pair. The technology is just not there and the present 3D techs may never evolve into anything that's commercially successful. That's not to say that some new innovation won't change that.

I don't know anyone who got a 3D TV for Christmas or who is planning to buy a 3D TV in the future (including myself) and most of the people I know (including high school and college students) look for theaters that will play the 2D version of 3D movies when they come out or just wait for it to come out on DVD if 3D theaters are the only option. We went to see Avitar 3D. It was a nice novelty. I can't see how it will ever become popular (maybe when they figure out how to loose the silly glasses).

~jr

I think it will continue to limp along. It works for event movies as a novelty - and as a novelty it holds something unique.

I'm not a fan of 3D - I find the effect calls too much attention to the artificiality of the viewing experience, but I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed the 3D use in Hugo. With movies like the Hobbit planned for release into 2013 it will continue to be there for those that care for it.

What the re-emergence of 3D did encourage was the speedier adoption of digital projection and the advantages of not having a physical print. Theater managers that I have spoken to love that aspect. Maybe this was part of the masterplan including making the pirating of movies more difficult and getting folks out the house to see movies (that has been a failure).

The worst part of 3D is that theaters do not remove the 3D lens for 2D projection and so films are viewed with a much dimmer image than prior to the adoption. This really sucks the life and beauty out of the projected image to the point that I am feeling short changed when I see movies at the theater.

Technology will progress so that every new TV will have 3D capability but I think few people will go to the effort of donning the glasses. The novelty wears off real fast when it becomes an everyday experience.

I have my cheap $600 720P projector and 10 foot screen in the living room and having the impact of that size image continues to impress and surpasses 3D any day.

Interesting article regarding 3D and arthouse cinemas, Arthouses debate 3D conversion.

A couple of quote:

Writer-director Philippe Mora -- who is making a 3D film about Salvador Dali -- was in the audience. "Everybody at the conference was asking why 3D has not been used as an adult medium in Hollywood," Mora says.

Never heard of this movie shot in 3D by one of the giants of serious cinema:

Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams," a 3D documentary about the world's oldest art, was a surprise critical hit in 2011. Herzog told the L.A. Times that he used 3D "to capture the intentions of the painters" filming inside the Chauvet Cave in southern France

Bob.

As StereoRealist said, I think it will be all about the content. Cave of Forgotten Dreams was apparently amazing in 3D (I only got to see it 2D) but documentary audiences are kinda small.

3D may still need the 'killer app' and maybe the Hobbit is it??? I am keen to see this projected properly, just for the experience of it.

Still, for home movies and weddings, I hope it doesn't catch on. It seems unnecessarily complicated for something that is just a gimmick. Heck, some of the best wedding photos are B&W.

kairosmatt

" The worst part of 3D is that theaters do not remove the 3D lens for 2D projection and so films are viewed with a much dimmer image than prior to the adoption. This really sucks the life and beauty out of the projected image to the point that I am feeling short changed when I see movies at the theater."


FYI....There are two separate lenses for 2D and 3D....they are manually changed when playing a 2D or 3D movie. Your information is not correct.

So that's "Changed" not "Removed"? Is that it?

Cheers

G

What if the Next Big Thing is 4K video, and not 3D?

Has anyone made any cameras that shoot 4K 3D? Will there be any?

Will you need a CRAY CPU to render 4K 3D?

A Cray? Why something so old, slow, and antiquated? lol. Cray is way back in the dust of ancient computerdom now. The beasts from Cray's heyday are probably closer to ENIAC than they are to a quad core i9.

Not so fast there, my friend. A Cray XT5 can be tricked out with 224,000 cores and is capable of 1.75 Petaflops. A hex core I9 is capable of something like 120 Gigaflops. That makes the XT5 roughly 1000 times faster. It's not your father's Cray anymore! ;-)

Yep, it's dead on arrival again.

Maybe in gaming, 3D has a chance since it might add to the "feel" of the game, but when I watch a film, it's the cinematography and story, not the visual dimensions that make it good.

Mike

Shouldn't it be called 4D? I mean, since the first film we have been representing 3 dimensions...it just so happens one of them was time. So when we depict depth aren't we now representing 4 dimensions?

I don't know... I have a cold and maybe I'm not thinking straight. :)

Chris.

Right now I am more interested in the new aspect TV's 21 x 9.
JJK

21 x 9? Why not simplify it to 7 x 3?