Bob, of course you're correct. But you can get all those boxes ticked and mess up in a technical area. Remember the Color Consultants (Technicolor technical specialists) on all the films made using the Technicolor process? These consultants didn't do the job of the DP or the gaffer; they provided the expertise needed to get the best out of the color process. So here in 3D we have people who are expert in the technical niceties of stereoscopic cinematography -- how to create 3D that is realistic and that doesn't make you sick. That the director/DP have two eyes to create successful 3D is a necessary but not sufficient condition, any more than it is sufficient that a colourist not be colour blind.

Want really realistic 3D? Go see a play in a small theater.

KK, It IS the TECHNOLOGY of 3D that is bad for your health.

In fact kids under 7 are told by companies NOT to watch 3D TV TECHNOLOGY AT ALL!!!

It is concluded 3D TV is Bad for your health. Case closed.

Reality check questions:

Is 3D already dying? Do newborn babies lose weight when they are first born? How do we determine when their weight loss is really something to worry about? Is it possible to determine if something is a fad or a cultural institution before the fact? Were VCRs a fad?

How do we evaluate health risks in general? What are the health risks for drinking soda, taking baths, driving in cars, playing video games? Which of these present greater health risks than watching a 3D movie? Do people under seven (and those over seven) reasonably engage in activities that could threaten their health or even lead to their deaths?

Should I prognosticate upon the communal worth and possible longevity of something through reference to my likes and dislikes, my comfort and discomfort, mycaring and not caring? Should I speculate in spite of the facts, because of the facts, or after the facts? If 3D makes me dizzy, in a good way, like my first love, should I proclaim it?

Tim Robertson (Cryptically and Unapologetically, a 3D Lover)

Panasonic announces 3D consumer camcorder:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1725239/panasonic-announces-3d-camcorder

The article is little screwy, but then again, it's somewhat of a rumor.

not a rumor...

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/3d-camcorders-could-boost-3d-tv-adoption

3D adapter lens will be sold as an option in Japan but bundled with camcorder in US. (As stated in the IDG video).

Panasonic's magic trick is pretty simple. In essence, the HDC-SDT750 is a 2D camcorder but its 3D capability comes courtesy of a conversion lens. It allows anyone to create 3D images by attaching the conversion lens that comes with the camcorder.

That "adaptor lens" has me worried. It sounds an awful lot like the old Pentax Stereo Adaptor (for still cameras) which was just a bunch of mirrors that split the standard 35mm frame into two halfs seperated by "normal" eye distance. It worked, BUT you end up with a *vertical* stereo image ('portrait' if you will) If it is the same type of setup you will not get a full frame stereo image, but a skinny, tall one .. and it will effectively double your focal length when you shoot.

Of course this is all conjecture. I have no idea how they plan on making it work.

I just saw a close up of the adaptor lens ... the two "lenses" (L and R) are WAY closer than human eyes are .. not likely to get very good stereo that way.

I'm not sure that the camcorder will save 3D. Do people actually watch the videos they take on holiday? Because that's probably the main use for camcorders. I tend to think that 3D videos of holidays and other special events will be watched once if at all and end up on a shelf or in a box together with the photos and the 3D glasses.

I reckon most people use their video/DVD/Bluray players to watch films or TV programmes so unless the multinationals can churn out 3D content that consumers are willing to buy or rent then it won't take off.

I can't see the point of watching a 3D version of a sitcom or drama unless the 3D effect is like watching it in a studio or a theatre. So far, all the 3D TV's I've seen are nowhere close to this and 3D films aren't capable of this either. 3D still appears gimmicky and that limits its appeal.

"Since the advent of talkies...the actors had almost forgotten how to pantomime. All their timing had gone into talk and not action."

Charlie Chaplin

3D runs in cycles. I think we have a resurgence about every ten or fifteen years. It is a neat effect if correctly setup but if not the eyestrain can be devastating. I have installed many 3D systems in movie theatres. dual projectors running in sync, dual images top and bottom on one projector, dual images side by side on 70mm film, red and green, polarized you name it. The system generates excitement when there is a good film but without content it is just a gimmick.

They said the same thing with sound, black and white, color, and widescreen. They are all gimmicks.
JJK

"... but without content it is just a gimmick."

I can't help but agree. In fact without content just about everything in film is a gimmick... special effects, for example.

Would "Gone with the Wind" be a better motion picture in 3D?
IMO 3D is just a special effect.

Ed B

Even though sound and colour (I'm not sure I remember a campaign against widescreen) were dismissed by some at the time unlike 3D they didn't require special equipment to be worn by the viewer.

If I could walk into a cinema or switch on the TV and see a convincing 3D effect without having to hunt for 3D specs then I'd be its biggest fan but the reality is 3D is still unconvincing on a 2D plane and the glasses a costly pita.

For crying out loud folks, we see in 3D and wear sunglasses when we go outside, what's the big deal? If 3D is just a "special effect" then why don't you wear a patch over one eye all day in order to get that special "2D goodness." I want the "you are there" experience and 2D doesn't do it.

As for whether Gone With The Wind would have been a better film in 3D; yes, maybe so. Since none of us will ever see it in 3D, we can never really say for sure.

How many of you have actually seen 3D television? Maybe you should take your horse and buggy to the local Best Buy and check it out. There are still some people that prefer vinyl records to CDs. Oh yeah, those ticks and pops and surface noise and inner groove distortion sure make for a superior listening experience.

"For crying out loud folks, we see in 3D and wear sunglasses when we go outside, what's the big deal?"

It's simply not the same, John. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

What we see in real life is nothing like 3D in movies and television. This was discussed before in another thread about 3D. Movies in 3D can no more be compared to real life than Surround Sound can be.

I have seen 3D that was as realistic as looking through a window. It wasn't reality but a credible simulation. Why is it that most people are talking about how useless it is for 3D MOVIES, there are a lot of other applications for 3D- TV, specifically documentaries. Heck, I'd like to see Deadliest Catch in 3D, maybe have a little squirt bottle synchronized to spritz me in the face at the appropriate times. (I shot a documentary on fishing and experienced situations somewhat similar to Deadliest Catch, I'd like to experience that again, but this time from the comfort of my living room.)

A lot of this same sort of criticism was leveled on this very forum not too long ago against HD-TV. "It's a fad", "It doesn't look any better than good SD", "No one in their right mind would buy it"... Guys, we're in the "smoke and mirror" business. 3D is just another tool.

"Why is it that most people are talking about how useless it is for 3D MOVIES..."

Could it be because that is where the focus of the vast majority of the users lies as well as where most here have had their 3D experience? John, you have to remember, not every one here works on advanced developmental projects at Los Alamos. A great deal of the research in 3D is geared toward medicine/surgery. However, I doubt too many here are working in the field of medicine.

Just like CGI (a tool) has not made movies better, e.g., the story, many here don't see that 3D will either. On the other hand, CGI has made it possible to realize ideas in a way they haven't been able to heretofore. Perhaps 3D will too, but until something better comes along than what is currently available, it's going to be a hard row to hoe.

In previous revivals of 3D it was (and is now) something special, something added for "extra value". Looking back on films made in those days (now available in 2D) we see how badly 3D was used (e.g. tossing things towards the camera in "Kiss Me, Kate"). The techniques for representing spacial relationships in 2D (lighting, DOF, composition) are just tools of the cinema and 3D will remain a fashionable gimmick unless it becomes just such a tool. In 3D I expect, for example, shallow DOF to fall out of favour as a means of directing attention.
Right now 3D is in its gimmick stage. Whether it progresses further will depend on film makers using it to add viewer immersion value; when 2D becomes a less satisfactory viewing experience. So far the films I've viewed in both mediums haven't lost much by being seen in 2D, probably because 3D was thought of as an "add-on" (and also acknowledging that the DVD market is 2D).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/business/media/03-3d.html?_r=1

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/love-affair-shows-signs-of-cooling-20100802-1137z.html

As soon as I read the phrase "converted to" I loose all interest.

Then again my mother had a job of converting B&W prints to color, anyone remember those. I still see a few around in old homes.

Bob.