3D bubble about to burst? (or at least start to deflate...)

[kinda]

I also when faced with a 2D or 3D option thought I'd rather save cash, wearing glasses, and a potenital headache.

Never been sold on 3D and had a look in John Lewis. I'm not sure if it's the standard look, or if it was just poor 3D, but objects looked very flat just split into flat planes that were nearer of further away. The fountain at the front looked like it had been cut out of a photo.

2D would have been much more real and immersive if that is the usual effect. You've got to ask yourself how much more unreal and less immersive does the world look if you close one eye?

 

[StanleyAV]

I also when faced with a 2D or 3D option thought I'd rather save cash, wearing glasses, and a potenital headache.

Never been sold on 3D and had a look in John Lewis. I'm not sure if it's the standard look, or if it was just poor 3D, but objects looked very flat just split into flat planes that were nearer of further away. The fountain at the front looked like it had been cut out of a photo.

2D would have been much more real and immersive if that is the usual effect. You've got to ask yourself how much more unreal and less immersive does the world look if you close one eye?

I found with the Panasonic 3D sets, there is an option to change the image order to the eyes. This for me, changed this 2D flat cutout depth portrayal into a more meaningful natural looking 3D that projected back into the set, rather than leaping out of the screen.

Once seen, our regular 2D does stand out as being only pseudo-dimensional. Our eyes binocular vision does impart its own pseudo-3D to television images though - the brain is still combining two different viewpoints of the same image this gives perceived visual depth, despite it being a 2D image. To see a true 2D image you would need to cover one eye.

Talking to a local TV dealer, he had a customer with only one eye and a patch on the other. The customer insisted he could see the 3D with the glasses on!

Who's to disagree?

Despite an impressive demo, 3D is a no go for me as I have chronic migraine.

When we can have 3D technology without glasses or active switching, maybe one day I can enjoy it!!

 

[pejwhome]

But we seem to be running before we can walk and it would have been better to sort out the digital switchover and HD first before plunging headfirst into 3D.

This is exactly what is happening because this is what the TV/AV manufacturers and film studios want so that their sales don't standstill. It's also the reason why, even before 3D is wholly accepted, we'll have 4K TV's to buy too.

 

[The_Lhc]

But we seem to be running before we can walk and it would have been better to sort out the digital switchover and HD first before plunging headfirst into 3D.

So you're saying the manufacturers, in Japan, should have waited for the UK to sort out their digital transmissions before releasing any more TVs? What about the rest of the world, shouldn't they wait for every country to start transmitting all their stations in HD, it's only fair? I shouldn't think Somalia will take very long to do that...

 

[StanleyAV]

True blue has a fair point. Manufacturers are driven by profit not logic. If the market isn't fully ready for the technology, take up will be poor.

It would take years before 3D became mainstream, and don't forget not everyone can even see the effect properly or use it without ill affects. Glasses alone is a disincentive for many, this is even true in the Japanese domestic market. It also doesn't factor in that people like to do stuff and watch televison, glasses use makes that far too awkward.

If cinema sales are indeed slumping off - joe public voting with their feet and avoiding any headaches etc Hollywood will not continue to invest in technology where there isn't a huge pay off. That will leave 3D satellite services without a lot of content to air. Suddenly early adoption in the technology doesn't look so smart.

Contrast this with 4K : even if we can't see the benefits, it will sell sets and be widely acceptable to all because its about resolution not a niche technology such as 3D. I predict we will see larger and larger sets to roll out this next big thing!

 

[strapped for cash]

Manufacturers are driven by profit not logic.

But industry strategies aren't purposefully founded on illogic.

The latest wave of 3D cinema is driven by a profit imperative, but there are multiple factors at play, beyond the percentage of box office revenues accrued from 3D screenings.

Take, for example, 3D film production as an anti-piracy strategy: while estimates of the amount of money lost to piracy each year vary, the sum quoted is always considerable; and if 3D exhibition ever becomes ubiquitous, this would eliminate the "film film from back of cinema" approach.

You also have to consider the potential seen by industry for repurposing older films in the 3D format. Profits from the home video sector have outstripped theatrical revenues for two and half decades; and 3D, in principle, gives the industry another excuse to sell us the same titles all over again. Granted, consumers are resistant to this approach, but I can understand the commercial logic behind it.

None of this means the film and consumer electronics industries haven't made a huge mistake in their rush to sell 3D, but the decisions weren't made blindly.

 

[Ripsnorter]

I work in the film industry and it's a fact the 3D bubble is, if not bursting, going flat. This is being caused by one or a combination of several factors: economic pressure (times are tight and so is money); the films themselves generally failing to deliver anything worth the extra charge; an unpleasant viewing experience, whether it's having to wear the glasses and/or experiencing side effects such as nausea and/or headaches, and, in some case, being unable to view the 3D effect.

Hollywood, in typical fashion, leaped onto the bandwagon and has shot itself in the foot in big style, seeing simply $ signs. Many films are also post-produced 3D, which is done according to the principle of cheapest bidder wins.

Speaking for myself: I will always seek out the 2D version and, if not available, I will pass. Who really needs Jack Black in 3D in Gulliver' Travels? I mean, seriously? In fact, I didn't need it in 2D, but I wasn't going to go near the 3D version!

I don't like the glasses, since I also wear normal specs, and find the washed out colours unpleasant. I've seldom experienced a screening where the film was projected properly! I went to see Tron 3D (no choice there) and, apart from not liking the film, large parts are in 2D anyway, and an hour afterwards I had nausea and headaches. Also, the 'Ooh! Aah!' factor didn't work on me.

In a very unscientific poll, in which I've asked people working in the cinemas, I am told more and more cinemagoes are opting for the 2D version, and that includes Helena, aged 10, who, quite unprompted, said "I don't like the stupid glasses!"

So, basically, I have no interest in 3D and will not be developing one. If the studios try to force me, I will simply pass on the films. I have colleagues of the press who are also boycotting 3D or marking the film down deliberately.

As for TV, I've never viewed 3D and, although my next TV will be 3D, that will be by default, the manufacturer essentially foisting it on me. They might be able to claim the sale of another 3D set, but it will be used for 2D only.

 

[True Blue]

But we seem to be running before we can walk and it would have been better to sort out the digital switchover and HD first before plunging headfirst into 3D.

So you're saying the manufacturers, in Japan, should have waited for the UK to sort out their digital transmissions before releasing any more TVs? What about the rest of the world, shouldn't they wait for every country to start transmitting all their stations in HD, it's only fair? I shouldn't think Somalia will take very long to do that...

No, that is not for one minute what I am saying. I am just stating that "our" market is not ready yet for the mass take up of 3d, and that in my opinion this is the reason that the 3d bubble appears to have burst.

Technology IS expanding exponentially with faster processors, faster internet etc etc. It just takes a while for the market to catch up. Whether or not people want 3d or 4K televisions will depend upon which delivers more percieved value to the customer and the manufacturers will make / build to whichever emerging market has the highest profit.

Personally I feel that the whole 3D thing will stagnate for a good few years until the rest of the digital / HD / HD ready etc etc has settled out. Whether or not 3D or 4K (or indeed 3d4k) is the future only time will tell.

 

[StanleyAV]

I work in the film industry and it's a fact the 3D bubble is, if not bursting, going flat. This is being caused by one or a combination of several factors: economic pressure (times are tight and so is money); the films themselves generally failing to deliver anything worth the extra charge; an unpleasant viewing experience, whether it's having to wear the glasses and/or experiencing side effects such as nausea and/or headaches, and, in some case, being unable to view the 3D effect.

It sounds rather like they are inducing migraine!

Just imagine if that affect lasts in any of the cinemagoers, how long before we see class action suits in the States? Only time will tell in home users if there are unwanted nasty side affects that don't go away. You could go from never suffering migraine to having a more permanent condition......

Bring on the 4K, 3D can wait for me, til its actually safe!

 

[Sizzers]

As with any new technology, they develop it and and after all the millions (hundreds of?) they've spent on it they then have to try find ways to sell it, to "convince" you that you that's it's a "must have", Yo're "missing out" if you don't buy it.

Think Blu Ray. The players sell by the shed load, the discs don't. They're just a great upgrade to play a DVD, that's all IMO.