3-D TVs to Debut Next Year - Will You Buy One?
Filed under: Fandom, Exhibition, Home Entertainment
You know how every other movie released in the last year has been in 3-D? And how it's a gimmick that allows theaters to charge a few dollars more per ticket without really giving you anything extra? Have you wished that you could experience the same dimmed colors and awkwardly fitting glasses in the comfort of your own home? No? Well, pretend you do and get excited about Japan's forthcoming 3-D television sets!The Associated Press reports that all of Japan's major TV manufacturers showed prototypes of flatscreen 3-D TVs at CEATEC, a consumer electronics exhibition running all this week. Sony and Panasonic both say theirs will be on the market in 2010; electronics blog Switched adds that Panasonic's will be out in time for the Winter Olympics, where Panasonic 3-D cameras will be used to film some of the action.
The question is whether consumers will consider the novelty of 3-D viewing worth the untold hundreds, if not thousands, of additional dollars that 3-D sets will cost. You still gotta wear the glasses, too; no one has found a solution to that problem yet. And there's still a very limited amount of 3-D programming available. Even if the trend catches on and some TV shows (sports would be an obvious choice) start broadcasting in 3-D, it would be years before it's commonplace. Look how long it's taken for high-definition to become the norm -- and there are still shows (and entire channels) that don't broadcast in HD. You don't have to wear special glasses to see things in HD, either. (These 3-D sets are HD and would be able to show regular 2-D programming as well as 3-D.)
So is this the wave of the future, or a goofy fad that will peter out in a few years? And if it does fade away, will it come back again 50 years from now, like the current 3-D trend did? Would you pay extra for a 3-D TV? Or are you holding out for 4-D?
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
Spin-ematical: New on DVD for 11/24_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive 'Nine' Poster Premiere!
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-06-2009 @ 6:10PM
Your Mom said...
Nobody sounds more stupid than the guy who refers to 3-D as a "gimmick."
If he'd been around for the transition from black and white to color he'd have been saying "...it's a gimmick that allows theaters to charge a [couple of pennies] more per ticket without really giving you anything extra." Or when they introduced audio to silent films, he would've been saying "this is just a fad that's going to die off once people get tired of it." Because he doesn't really know anything about cinema, or understand that it is--by its very nature--a special effect. It creates the illusion of motion through time and space out of still images, tricking your eyes.
3-D adds nothing extra? How about a whole extra third dimension? The complainers are the same kind of moron that would decry the entire medium of film when it was invented, because it wasn't a book... and now the irony is that the only way that they can understand and judge their beloved movies are by the standards of a book.
Then they tell themselves "I'm an intellectual, because I care about The Oscars." That's because they think that the Oscar Club actually matters and has anything to do at all with quality, instead of being just a bunch of rich assholes in a business that passes awards around to each other every year in a payola-horseshit ceremony full of celebutards.
Read some writing on cinema that doesn't come out of Entertainment Weekly, whydoncha? Also, try knowing what you're talking about. That would help too.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 6:26PM
Bubbameister33 (Confused by Fanboyism) said...
Calm down.
10-06-2009 @ 6:31PM
Reuben said...
You seem to be really into this. While I don't think that 3-D is a gimmick, I certainly don't think that everything needs to be projected in 3-D (I'm talking in generals.) There is a point where, I feel, it becomes unnecessary and annoying
10-06-2009 @ 7:10PM
Jim said...
Wow, my mom should really settle down.
I'm sorry, but your analogy is way off. To actually compare the introduction of color and audio to a process that allows a somewhat blurry double-image of a yo-yo to look like it's coming out of the screen at me is pure insanity. How can you in the same breath attempt to declare that "complainers" are morons while comparing two utterly different types of technology advancements? Since you're so ready to label us "complainers" as those who would have decried color television, then shall we do the same to you and say that you're the type who would have wanted Hollywood to spend millions on Smell-O-Vision, Illusion-O, or any of a handful of William Castle cinema gimmicks?
Here's the problem that I have with 3-D. I took my son to see Monsters vs. Aliens. I was curious to see how the 3-D would look. It didn't look bad, but after about ten minutes, the illusion wore off and it didn't even look like 3-D anymore, unless you want to count the constant somewhat double image that it produces ... or the fact that the glasses are annoying and I can't take them off or the movie looks ridiculous.
You see, the reason why it can be labeled a gimmick is because it really doesn't advance anything at all. Digital sound advances sounds, digital picture advances picture quality ... but all 3-D does is create an annoyance for a lot of people. Although, I will say that calling 3-D a gimmick is using that term as an accepted definition, not the strict definition, since, as you state, it allows you to see things in the third dimension.
But honestly, even that could be argued. When I watch a 3-D movie, I don't think it looks like it has three dimensions. It's not nearly as immersive as I ever think it will be. That's why I've given it a few chances. A stage play is in three dimensions. A 3-D movie is still flat and I doubt that any kind of super-duper-here comes the big scary yo-yo glasses will ever change that.
But truly, the biggest problem I have is that when a movie is created for 3-D, it often looks ridiculous when seen in 3-D. For example, watch an old movie like Friday the 13th, part 3, and tell me the parts made specifically for 3-D don't look ridiculous in 2-D.
But, hey, if you like it, that's great. I have a really good friend who likes 3-D a lot and even wants to make movies using the technique. But I'll tell you one thing I don't do ... I don't go to websites trying to insult people who like it.
My mom would never do that either.
10-06-2009 @ 7:36PM
Your Mom said...
Sounds like you've got nothing, Jim. Other than a yo-yo obsession, that is.
What's wrong with my analogy, exactly? I compare a technology to a technology. Audio in movies is a relatively old technology that has been through much improvement, giving us THX and the like. 3-D is a relatively new technology that hasn't yet benefited from all those extra years of innovation. Your assertion that my analogy is "pure insanity" is just that... your assertion. But, in fact, my analogy is right on the money. Even if you don't like wearing the glasses when you take your kid to see Monsters vs. Aliens. Sorry.
I also show how my analogy relates to the history of cinema, its evolution over time, and its future. You do nothing to disprove anything that I say. You only say that you find 3-D glasses annoying and that it "doesn't advance" anything. But just saying it doesn't make it so. My analogy of black and white to color is a perfect one in this case.
Your argument that something made in 3-D looks ridiculous in 2-D is obtuse. Well, something made with sound might be ridiculous when watched in silence, but that doesn't invalidate audio technology at all.
You sound like a whiner. "The glasses are annoying." That's the best you've got? You sound like one of those people who make derogatory comments about "special effects" while never really realizing that the entire movie is a "special effect."
Fail.
10-06-2009 @ 6:32PM
Riley Freeman said...
waste.
NO
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 6:34PM
Your Mom said...
I'm as calm as I am right, which means that I'm very, very calm.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 6:42PM
Your Mom said...
Sorry Reuben, but everything is moving toward the holodeck. You can fight against technological advancement, but you won't win. Luddites never do.
At the same time, I agree that not everything *needs* to be in 3-D. I never said that. People will still make 2-D movies in the future, just like people still make black and white movies (even though there's color) or paint (even though there's photography). Some people fetishize what's old, and that will always happen.
People still play Monopoly even though there's Xbox.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 7:09PM
Bubbameister33 (Confused by Fanboyism) said...
And they play Monopoly on the Xbox.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 7:56PM
Your Mom said...
"And they play Monopoly on the Xbox."
My point exactly.
People still shoot photographs and movies on film as well.
There will always be those who care about the old way of doing things, which isn't wrong, as long as they're not actively trying to hold back the rest of humanity from evolving at the same time.
Fuck cell phones! Smoke signals are the only real, authentic form of communication!
10-06-2009 @ 7:35PM
gerry_g said...
Try poking out one eye and see how much less a quality experience life is in mono, binocular vision is not a trivial thing, a gimmick, a substitute for artistic pretension, it's a fundamental, a basic minimum which makes a huge difference to the overall dynamic.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 7:46PM
Your Mom said...
Look out, gerry_g! You might upset some pseudo-intellectual Luddites who don't like to think about stuff.
Besides, your assertion is pure insanity. One eyeball should be good enough for anyone. Depth perception is just a "gimmick."
Just like other pointless senses such as smell, taste, and touch.
10-06-2009 @ 8:46PM
benbligh said...
I'm going to start selling eye patches at theaters for all you moviegoers who don't want to see a movie in 3D
10-06-2009 @ 8:08PM
Kev said...
It's bad enough I have to go to a theater and look like an idiot wearing those ridiculous glasses. Now I get to sit on my own couch and look like an idiot wearing those ridiculous glasses. No thanks.
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 8:10PM
benbligh said...
Regarding the actual post...
3-D monitors already exist. I recently worked on a Stereoscopic production and we used the Hyundai stereoscopic monitor to review Quicktimes in stereo. You need to buy the monitor whole sale for about $5000 (straight from Korea basically) and it comes with the worlds worst remote control. We actually fried 2 of these suckers. Bleeding edge of technology I suppose. And yes, its polarized so you where the same Blues Brothers glasses you do in theaters.
Regarding the the 3D approach...
There is a fine line between films shot in 3-D and films that are converted to 3-D.
G-Force was shot in 2D and they decided to "dimensionalize" the film in post production for marketability. Dimensionalizing is the tedious and rough process or rotoscoping layers of the image and offsetting their convergence so they pop out or into the screen (positive and negative Z-space). This stuff looks pretty bad in stereo and is extremely expensive.
Now films like Hannah Montana, Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, and Tron Legacy were always intended to be 3D and therefore shot with cameras with a beam splitter or an actual Right and Left eye. The result is an image that most resembles how our eye view a converged image.
All animated films are more simple to dimensionalize because its all digital already. In their software they just add another camera (the left or right eye) and can auto-calculate and ride convergence (depth of Z-space). BUT! Most of these films are conceived in 2D, therefore the blocking, editing and pacing are for a 2D image, then the studio jumps in and wants it 3D for marketability and you end up with Disney/Pixar's UP in 3D! Coraline is an example of animation originally intended for 3D which worked much better (although UP is a better film, I'm strictly discussing the effectiveness of 3D)
The overall experience isn't too different as your eyes adjust after about 10-15 minutes and its just another layer working invisibly with picture and sound. Other times its too intense and makes us cross-eyed and splits our brains open after 15 minutes.
Bottom line, whether its a gimmick depends upon the filmmakers. 3D cannot save storytelling but I enjoy the option of seeing something different at the theater.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 9:07AM
ML said...
Personally, I have nothing against 3D but feel that if something is put out in 3D it should be planned in 3D rather than "demensionalized" after the fact to make more money. Also, it would feel less "gimmicky" with fewer of the "Look!! I'm in 3D!!!" shots. As for 3D TVs: my opinion is that they won't really take off until/unless the manufacturers figure out some way to take out the glasses factor. People go to pretty great lengths to avoid wearing regular glasses, so I'd wonder whether they'd want to wear them every time they turn on the TV. Plus there's the problem of losing them. We have enough problems with the remote(s). But, yeah, sports in 3D could be popular.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 9:56AM
Wexler said...
I have no doubt 3D is here to stay, but it's got a ways to go before I'll buy a 3D TV. As you said, most of the 3D these days is more of a gimmick to make money, so until they start making more movies with 3D in mind from the start, I have a hard time seeing them selling very many of these TV's.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 11:34AM
Felicia said...
I don't have a problem with new technology and I don't mind the glasses but have begun to lose interest in 3D already. When it was first available, I always tried to see movies in 3D but it quickly seemed to me that it didn't really make any difference to my enjoyment of the film. I don't think it is going anywhere and I will still go see one now and again but I don't think I'd have any interest in owning a TV with 3D. Who knows though? A few years from now if it is popular and commonplace--thus cheaper--I could change my mind.
Reply