ESPN kills 3D channel

I stopped watching movies in 3d some time ago already. I kept going to the 3d version thinking I might miss something, and every time I was like, this stupid "picture window effect" doesn't look any better than 2d and it's harder to see with the glare on these damn glasses. Now I just go to the 2d version and I know I'm not missing anything.

However, if you make a My Bloody Valentine in 3d, or Piranha 3d and I know for a fact you intend to throw things out of the screen into my face for the sheer fun and kitsch value of it, I will gladly play the 3d price of admission.
 
3D has consistently failed to take off because it hasn't been invented yet. What we have right now is stereoscopic, which is only a partial illusion of 3D at best.

In this latest effort the big industry players have pushed stereoscopic just about as far as it can go, and it's still not good enough for many viewers (people have different levels of acceptance of the flaws). I think that just about seals it for stereoscopic - it might continue for some movies as an option, and be worthwhile for a portion of the audience; but for mainstream, it's just not working.

My guess is the 3D revolution which succeeds will be the one where we get true 3D. That will be awesome (but a long way out).
 
AtticusLake said:
3D has consistently failed to take off because it hasn't been invented yet. What we have right now is stereoscopic, which is only a partial illusion of 3D at best.

In this latest effort the big industry players have pushed stereoscopic just about as far as it can go, and it's still not good enough for many viewers (people have different levels of acceptance of the flaws). I think that just about seals it for stereoscopic - it might continue for some movies as an option, and be worthwhile for a portion of the audience; but for mainstream, it's just not working.

My guess is the 3D revolution which succeeds will be the one where we get true 3D. That will be awesome (but a long way out).
Click to expand...

You mean you move around and see a different view, like you can look behind something depending on where you are in relationship to the screen? Yes, that would be revolutionary.
 
Yes, and your eyes can change focus to focus on different parts of the scene.

It's not just that these things would be cool; the point is that without them (e.g. in stereoscopic), the scene will always look unsettlingly fake. Even without wanting to look behind things, having tiny unconscious movements of your head not result in a change of view is unnatural.
 
AtticusLake said:
Yes, and your eyes can change focus to focus on different parts of the scene.

It's not just that these things would be cool; the point is that without them (e.g. in stereoscopic), the scene will always look unsettlingly fake. Even without wanting to look behind things, having tiny unconscious movements of your head not result in a change of view is unnatural.
Click to expand...

I never thought of it that way but it makes perfect sense. In many ways a stereoscopic image where you see depth that you cannot focus on is more unreal and unnatural than a 2d image. We see 2d images in nature all day long. it's just color and patterns. We never see anything stereoscopic in nature so it looks unreal and always will. Directors have been trying to sell us that it's more "realistic" but there's nothing at all realistic about a stereoscopic picture window.
 
Actual, true holograms DO change with perspective, but the expense and limitations of shooting an entire film that way would be most prohibitive, to say nothing of display.
 
David Jimerson said:
Actual, true holograms DO change with perspective, but the expense and limitations of shooting an entire film that way would be most prohibitive, to say nothing of display.
Click to expand...

Not just cost prohibitive today…..the technology to shoot and PLAYBACK 3D holograms has not really been invented yet. It will be here, but we probably won't be.
 
David Jimerson said:
Actual, true holograms DO change with perspective, but the expense and limitations of shooting an entire film that way would be most prohibitive
Click to expand...

One option: Plenoptic cameras (think Lytro).

Another option: Look at current video games - some of them now capture actors' performances... in true 3D space. A different approach towards computational cinematography.

David Jimerson said:
to say nothing of display.
Click to expand...

Near term option 1: Oculus VR headset

Near term option 2: Kinect 2 (it detects if you move your head and adjusts display accordingly)

Medium term option 1: Tensor display (http://web.media.mit.edu/~gordonw/TensorDisplays/)

Medium term option 2: Array of pico-projectors, possibly with optical media (http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/LFD/)

Long term option: Actual moving hologram thing

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
bruceallen said:
One option: Plenoptic cameras (think Lytro).

Another option: Look at current video games - some of them now capture actors' performances... in true 3D space. A different approach towards computational cinematography.



Near term option 1: Oculus VR headset

Near term option 2: Kinect 2 (it detects if you move your head and adjusts display accordingly)

Medium term option 1: Tensor display (http://web.media.mit.edu/~gordonw/TensorDisplays/)

Medium term option 2: Array of pico-projectors, possibly with optical media (http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/LFD/)

Long term option: Actual moving hologram thing

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

None of those short-term options is particularly satisfying.

Another practical problem is that if the 3D perspective changes, then your view of the movie varies greatly depending on where you sit. If anyone's ever sat waaaaaay to the side when watching a play . . .
 
Yeah, movies that you can get up and walk around would be a whole new medium. (Also waaaay in the future.)

What I was thinking was a camera with an array of sensors could create enough viewpoints to compensate for small head motions, and solve that problem. Still technically challenging, but not quite so crazy.
 
AtticusLake said:
3D has consistently failed to take off because it hasn't been invented yet. What we have right now is stereoscopic, which is only a partial illusion of 3D at best.

In this latest effort the big industry players have pushed stereoscopic just about as far as it can go, and it's still not good enough for many viewers (people have different levels of acceptance of the flaws). I think that just about seals it for stereoscopic - it might continue for some movies as an option, and be worthwhile for a portion of the audience; but for mainstream, it's just not working.

My guess is the 3D revolution which succeeds will be the one where we get true 3D. That will be awesome (but a long way out).
Click to expand...

+1 Current 3D film and TV is very similar to when stereo LPs first appeared, everything was panned hard left and right, no soundstage,
it gradually improved to where we are today.

We've got a 3D channel with our Fox cable, but we haven't signed up because we'd need a new 3D TV and wearing the glasses at home is not cool.
Some neighbours have it, the screen is much smaller than a theatre screen, you can't watch at an acute angle and the programs are meh.

But Glasses Free 3D screens will give 3D TV a big boost. At EXPO 2010 in Shanghai, we waited an hour to get in to see the large Siemans GF 3D prototype set, huge interest in it. And a Sony rep says that eventually all TV sets will be GF 3D, to amortize set production.

James Cameron, Dolby and Phillips have got together to develop and produce proper GF 3D screens. When they settle in, museums, art galleries, airports,
bus and train stations will run 3D programs.

Eg: Imagine getting the contract to produce 100,000 copies of MacDonalds 3D programs, to run on GF 3D screens in their outlets,
while ppl wait for their Big Macs. Studying 3D production is a good way to go, stay ahead of the pack.

Cheers.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top