Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Will 3D Really Succeed?

3D television high definition movies

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21
alonzo-ny

alonzo-ny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
No, it isn't.

#22
OrbitalResonance

OrbitalResonance

    Cosmic Emperor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,233 posts
  • LocationDeep Space
Pretty graphics, bout it

We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan


#23
Rook

Rook

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Transformers 3 is a really subherb execution of good 3D.


I would say only the first 20 minutes of it was decent 3D, with the first shots of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley being superb 3D http://www.futuretim...tyle_emoticons/animate/thumbsup.gif . I didn't even notice any other 3D shots for the rest of the movie except for a couple moments towards the end that really didn't add much. Vague but I'm trying to avoid spoilers. =P

I remember reading somewhere that for your brain to interpret a 3D video correctly you need to be focusing on the right area of the screen. Then the shot has to be designed in a way that kind of guides everyone's eyes in the "right" direction. I think the main thing the technology needs to REALLY take off is for at least one really great director/cinematographer to figure out exactly how to use the medium (as in the technical details that only film students and hardcore movie buffs know about) and make a great movie with those techniques. Then the rest of Hollywood can go "oh....that's what we should be doing!"

If I'm right, I hope said visionary comes soon. 3D movies have a lot of potential if people can find a way to move it beyond silly gimmicks and into actual art form.

#24
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
Wll 3D succeed? Probably not. http://www.cracked.c...nny-3862-3d-tv/

#25
Dead Redshirt

Dead Redshirt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
Bringing this topic back, as I was at our local science center today, and they have these object theatres that they've had since the 80's, and they're pretty much large scale multimedia presentations used to explain specific topics. So, instead of just sitting down to watch a movie, you'd be surrounded with things that are highlighted using different effects throughout the movie, as a way to bring a 4th dimension to things. Our science center has pretty much pioneered the concept. Anyway, they've built a new one on the topic of dark matter recently, and my Dad and I didn't know what we were walking into, but as it turned out, it was using cutting edge 3D techniques. The guy running the show explained it as the same technology companies are working on for 3D TVs without glasses. At first I thought he had forgotten to give us glasses, but holy moly, was it ever impressive. It's more or less using holographics, and it was very effective. No eyestrain here. The images jumped at you in a very effective yet subtle way and I realized we were experiencing holographics the way we've known how they should look like after all these years. Totally awesome. Afterwards, my Dad and I looked at the screens and mirrors and it looked rather simple but ingenius. It consists of one smaller screen which is mostly used for 2D parts of the movie and background imagery, with a slanted mirror and another screen on the floor, sort of like this: | /_
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. - Jack Layton - 1950 - 2011

#26
Nick1984

Nick1984

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • LocationUK
http://www.engadget....-in-de/?m=false ...it will now

#27
Zachemc2

Zachemc2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts
I say skip 3D and go to Holographic displays.

#28
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

I say skip 3D and go to Holographic displays.

Yeah, but there's probably a technological middle ground in the at least 20 year interval between now and then.

I think 3D will succeed. I think it hasn't picked up steam because

1) It doesn't look good enough
2) The glasses suck
and 3) It costs too much

1 will largely depend on 2 and 3. 2 is perfectly manageable, it just costs too much. 3 is related to this, but like all information technology, the cost will plummet dramatically in the next few years. 1 isn't too much of a problem, but researchers will need to want to better it. Meaning there will need to be a demand for it. And I think there will be, because there is still a demand for modern 3D, even if it is lackluster, and Toshiba thinks it's a good idea to sell an $11,000 glasses free 3D TV (which will inevitably cost very little soon enough).

In a way, Avatar was a little too ahead of its time. It ushered in all this 3D hype when the tech wasn't there.

My prediction for the 2020 TV: 3D without glasses, ultra-HD, lighter and thinner, still like 50", with Kinect-like motion and voice recognition to turn it on, change the channel, bring up the guide, record shows, etc. Maybe with something like Google TV as well.

#29
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
http://www.engadget....-the-zl2-in-de/ It already succeeded.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#30
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

http://www.engadget....-the-zl2-in-de/

It already succeeded.

Yeah, but that thing costs a lot lol. That's not going to be mainstream.

#31
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
Yeah. DVD, BR and shitload of other stuff was once expensive.
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#32
Logically Irrational

Logically Irrational

    For Lack of a Better Name

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • LocationHoover Dam
I remember reading somewhere about a really cool way 3D was used in the movie Coraline. What they did was place the twin 3D cameras at odd distances apart, so that it gave the viewer a subtle sense of disorientation. It helped to put the audience in the mood for the film by giving off a sense of foreboding. I never got to see Coraline in 3D, only 2D unfortunately, but this seems like a way 3D could be used to help the story, beyond being just a gimmick. Now that this is possible, I think 3D has a much better chance of sticking around than it did before.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

#33
waitingforthe2030s

waitingforthe2030s

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • LocationOrion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy.

Well, we're back from the future. First, did 3D TV's succeed?

Nope.

 

 

It mostly boils down to the fact that many people didn't want to deal with the hassle of buying a new television that cost much more than their old one just to use the feature for a few movies. And then you had to wear glasses, which you'd probably lose, and maybe you'd get sick from the movie... it's no wonder they flopped. And there was no glasses free 3D after all. 


I'm a radical demo-publiacrat.

 

This is Scatman's world, and we're living in it.


#34
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,063 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

There was a fantastic Reddit comment detailing why 3D TV failed, but Redditsearch.io is completely down right now. When it's back up and running, I'll post it here because it was a fantastic breakdown.

 

The gist is that TV manufacturers were drunk off the success of the switch from analog to digital TV & SD to HD TV, which were actually genuine revolutions in the industry. Ever since, they've been chasing after the 'Next Big Thing' to keep profits up, hence why they tried pushing 3D TV  (and subsequently, curved screen TV and 4K) so hard.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#35
waitingforthe2030s

waitingforthe2030s

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • LocationOrion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy.

Also, why is this thread marked Hot if there have been no posts for 8 years? (It was marked Hot before I replied)


I'm a radical demo-publiacrat.

 

This is Scatman's world, and we're living in it.


#36
Maximum7

Maximum7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 193 posts
3D hurts my eyes. I hope it’s just a passing fad.

#37
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,063 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

bumnut

In the early 2000s, CRTs became obsolete and everyone upgraded to plasmas (or TFTs or or LCDs or whatever). It was a genuine revolution in the industry - the new tech was leaps ahead of the old and a huge majority of people upgraded. The big retailers and TV manufacturers made a bunch of money.

Then it reached the point where everyone who was going to upgrade already had upgraded. But the retailers and manufacturers weren't ready to give up all of that profit, and have been chasing another revolution since. 3D, curved screens, high frame rate interpolation, smart TVs. Soon we're going to have transparent TVs. All hailed as the next revolution, not true for any of them.

Edit: a lot of people are arguing that the end of CRTs I was referring to above wasn't that revolutionary because of how shitty the early flat screens were, and how true conniseurs like yourself see the true revolution was x.

The actual objective difference in the technology doesn't matter. I'm taking about the societal thing that happened where a huge number of people were suddenly willing to drop thousands of dollars on the new kind if TV. It may be true that OLEDs or whatever are a bigger jump in picture quality than the first flat screens, but that doesn't change my point.

 


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#38
Kynareth

Kynareth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

I don't care about 3D as much as I care about VR and AR - 3D in full 360 degrees. However, current displays and processors are still not sufficiently advanced. In my opinion, 4K, OLED and HDR are true innovations available now and they really improve the experience.

 

At home I use a UHD HDR monitor and a smart UHD HDR non-3D non-OLED TV daily (and I like them) but not VR because it's in too early stage. I also cannot afford playing AAA games in UHD 60fps because of how expensive the 2080 Ti is.

 

Transparent TVs are pointless, what I would like is an affordable UHD 240Hz monitor with perfect blacks, whites and colors (and a GPU for that).







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 3D, television, high definition, movies

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users