[I] He says that 3D via glasses is dead [/I]This is not exactly a surprise to many of who, almost five years ago (in 2010), predicted that 3D would fizzle:

3D... does anyone care?

Quoting from myself (with sound of hand patting back of my shoulder ;) I said in that thread: "[I]I don't see 3D as something that significant numbers of us will ever actually use and edit, even five years from now."[/I]

There were only a few of us gray-hairs saying this back then, but it was pretty obvious.

Is there any 3D programming at all here in the USA? I've been getting my TV from AT&T Uverse for the past 18 months, and when I first got it, there were a few on-demand shows in 3D. I now see none. Were any of the major sporting events in the past year (Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, NHL Finals, tennis majors, golf majors, or stock car races) broadcast in 3D? If so, I sure didn't see any "available in 3D." I remember when new TV technologies first came to the home, the networks advertised that technology before every show: remember "brought to you in living color" in the early 60s; or "broadcast in stereo" during the 1980s; or, durint the last decade, "available in HD?"

By contrast, I almost never saw any 3D claims before shows in the past five years, and the few I did see disappeared rapidly.

I have not seen any 3D TVs at Costco for at least a year.

I declare USA 3D in the home to be officially dead.

I LOVE 3D at the theater. But, my TV is not 3D

I enjoy 3D at home with my projector. I've been snapping up 3D Blu Rays worried that the format may die out. I think (hope) it will remain as at least a niche item for those that like it. I have a Sony 3D camcorder that's fun to play with. I really have little desire for 4K material. I just don't think It will matter that much for home use.

[I]I really have little desire for 4K material. I just don't think It will matter that much for home use. [/I]4K is at least a decade out for home use, at least on any significant scale (measured by penetration of at least 1/3 of all homes). However, it is most definitely here and now as an acquisition format, even in the markets that Vegas serves.

The only thing that keeps me from buying a 4K camera the next time I'm in the market for a new toy is that it is going to continue to be a fairly painful exercise to edit because computer horsepower just isn't increasing very quickly anymore. The big production companies can afford to throw render farms and people at the problem, but for the sole practitioner, like most of us, doubling or quadrupling our workflow time is tough to justify for most projects.

The only non-glasses 3D TV that I've ever seen was at the 2010 NAB. And only one. It works with a Fresnel lens over the screen so that each eye does see separate fields. With 4K resolution, this would give you an effective 2K stereo image. The downside was a narrow field of view, about 15-degrees in the demo I saw.

I have a recently purchased Sony large screen 3D TV, and I seek out any 3D material I can find. I love it.

Geoff

"I declare USA 3D in the home to be officially dead."
While admittedly 3D has not caught on as it was planned, it's not exactly dead either. You can still buy 3D tv's and they're still pumping out 3D movies. We just picked up "Gravity" in 3D.

There used to be 2 different 3D tv technologies though, the passive system (non battery glasses), and the active shutter system (lcd glasses with batteries) It seems the industry has settled out on the Passive system, because you don't really see the active ones anymore. Other then that though, the 3D world still kicks on.

Avatar is the worst piece of crap ever made. Titanic not far behind.

He should get into his sub, dive and stay down there. Take George Lucas with him if possible.

As long as they are in charge, it makes no difference how many dimensions we have on screen. The mental dimension is always going to be nonexistent.

We'll mark you as undecided on Lucas and Cameron.
As for 3D, just looked out the window using my two UNaided eyes,....what ever that is,...looks good and works for me. Much like the screen I'm viewing as I write this.
Three D, schmee D.
Content is the dimension we are looking for, is it now?

He should get into his sub, dive and stay down there. Take George Lucas with him if possible.Cameron has actually directed some decent action movies, like the two Terminator movies he did. I fully agree about "Avatar" being a pretentious movie. The technology and the effects in that clunker are pretty darned amazing, however.

As for Lucas, as a director he manages to get the most wooden performances out of his actors of any director I've ever seen. I was unable to sit through any of the last three Star Wars movies. He's actually only directed a handful of movies in his career, and it shows. He did a pretty good job running ILM for all those years, and I'm sure he made a fortune when Disney bought him out.

By coincidence I was down yesterday in our high-bay assembly area where we built/rebuilt the Alvin submersible here at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Anyway, I looked at and climbed upon Cameron's Deepsea Challenger submersible. It is kept there in storage, as we're never going to use it because it is too unsafe by our standards (e.g. no manual backup system for dropping ballast, no redundant rebreather life support, etc.). Furthermore, the descent rate of the vessel is 150 meters/min, which is MUCH too fast when you consider the huge momentum that the vessel has (it's about 7 or 8 meters long). I'll have to check if it's alright for me to post some photos on this public site.

Peter

"He should get into his sub, dive and stay down there"

While I am not wild over Cameron's film, he is good for the business and I for one am grateful to have him. People like Cameron (and once upon a time, Lucas) are opening new doors to an otherwise stagnating world of film technology. He is not bothered by the old fashioned and outdated critics who proclaim 24p and stereo sound to be the ever living king. These critics are as such simply because they lack the balls to venture out and try new things.

I applaud Cameron for his efforts to keep the industry fresh and ever changing.

Balls? Maybe they just don't like the stuff. I'll never buy a 3D TV. Makes me want to vomit.

"Balls? Maybe they just don't like the stuff. I'll never buy a 3D TV. Makes me want to vomit."

You should do some reading on Cameron because it's not just consumer 3D. He's developing new cameras, new frame rates,... He's even helping NASA develop a 3D camera for the mars rover. This guy goes a lot further than just the movies.

Lucas's THX systems/certification are now a part of millions of home theater systems and it gets used every day. The same no doubt will happen with Cameron's developments. My guess is that you will most likely be using some of his designs and ideas somewhere down the road.

I loved the new Hobbit movie in 3D IMAX, best 3D I've ever seen. My TV is 3D capable, but I don't have glasses and my PS3 may not do 3D, although an upgrade may have made it compatible.

3D will be more widespread as the headsets are released. Although Oculus Rift has been bought by Facebook (?) but Sony just announced a PS4 headset for the PS4 that is more comfortable and has surprised many.

Headsets are the future of 3D, not glasses or room tricks.

"I loved the new Hobbit movie in 3D IMAX, best 3D I've ever seen."

Watched it too. Excellent. Have a look at "Gravity" in 3D. It'll knock your socks off. And yes.. the PS3 does do 3D. In fact we watched "gravity" on it just this past weekend.

My guess is that I won't!

I watched Gravity, plus a bunch of other 3D movies, and I love them all. My set uses the passive glasses, and there is no discomfort or penalty in using them. And I also think Avatar was a brilliant 3D movie, OK the story line was 'borrowed' from a dozen other movies, but what isn't these days.

I have made a few 3D programs of my own and I enjoy them as well, and I would make more if there was some agreeable technology to do it with.

3D is now nothing special, the decision to shoot in 3D no different to deciding to shoot wide or scope.

Bob.

3D is now nothing special, the decision to shoot in 3D no different to deciding to shoot wide or scope.But compared to the decision to shoot scope, isn't there a huge cost increase, in both shooting and post, when one opts to shoot 3D?

[I]"But compared to the decision to shoot scope, isn't there a huge cost increase, in both shooting and post, when one opts to shoot 3D?"[/I]

Well there was a pretty big cost to the production shooting anamorphic scope a few years back as the lenses were rare. Now even self funded indie productions are shooting with anamorphic lenses.

Of course shooting 3D means double the data and the production needs 2 cameras for every one they needed for 2D plus the rigs. However this is easier and cheaper to do today. All the latest camera offerings from Sony were designed to easily mount into a 3D rig.

In the end though the cost of the camera dept isn't a big part of a movie's costs. People are the biggest cost and because today there's enough people available who know how to shoot 3D and deal with it in post the cost burden is small enough that it's just another creative and commercial option.

Bob.

It is actually very difficult to do with existing cameras, as virtually all new cameras lack the ability to synchronise the cameras properly. Simple genlock won't cut it, you need to synchronise the shutter as well. There are purpose made 3D cameras, but the results from them are pretty ordinary.