3D TV - Audience Led?

[Andrew Everard]

ukisbankrupt:No names need be put forward.

Oh go on, name names...

And I'm not sure what 'the proverbial convention in question' may be.

However, the uptake of 3D will depend on there being sufficient content available to make people want to spend the premium on a new TV and a new Blu-ray player in order to watch it - and while several top companies have already announced 3D hardware on the way, at the moment there are only two feature films confirmed in 3D this year. One from Sony, one from Disney, plus suggestions there may be a World Cup highlights disc on 3D Blu-ray at some point.

No-one's saying they want 3D to fail: rather among the the opinions being expressed is that it's unreasonable to expect people to buy a new BD player and TV when many have only recently made substantial investments in such equipment.

 

[visionary]

I really can't see the point (pun intentional). Apart from the initial "ooooh aaaah" when something "comes out of the screen at you" like at the beginning of "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" (rubbish plot too). For the rest of it I just felt the picture colour quality was like watching an old nicotine stained B&W film - Sepia I think they called it. Watched Coraline 3D and the "special extra BOBs big Break" on Monsters and Aliens too. The 2D version has better colour and no more/less involvement.

The "marketing ploy" faction get my vote

 

[Andrew Everard]

Well, the idea of the systems now being put forward is that they will have proper colour and brightness, but with the 3D effect, and my experience so far is that they deliver on those promises. However, beyond that I have to agree with you.

 

[ElectroMan]

ukisbankrupt:
We see the world in 3D. Why should the box be in 2D even if 3D is technologically possible? It is not rocket science. 3D is seeing the world as intended for humans.

If you want to go back to 2D then have your eyes altered to see those around you in 2D. I am sure it can be done.

No institution either Hollywod or Japan INC is pushing anyone down the 3D route. It's what was to naturally come in 2010.See it as an TV evolution. We should learn to enjoy it and not wish it an early death or a threat?

Yes, but film is not real life. Just as paintings and photographs aren't real life. Your argument seems to ignore the concept of art - artistic expression can tell us more about real life than real life itself (admittedly, this doesn't apply to most Hollywood blockbusters!).

And I think you'll find that Hollywood and the electronics industry are very intent on pushing everyone down the 3D route.

I don't wish it an early death, but I do think it's being promoted too soon - too soon after the introduction of HD (which still leaves a lot of people confused), and before they can do it without the need for glasses.

 

[ElectroMan]

welshboy:
Aldfort say:

3d will not be widely adopted until somebody gets rid of the specs. Holographic technology is the only way I know that this can be done. (In a home context. Clearly IMAX gives a near real experience already.) The current crop is surely just the next Laserdisc fad. The reason I say this is that cinemas have tried this before and it flopped. If it flopped before why won't it flop again? It's basically the same technology.

Laserdisc wasn't a 'fad', even though it only had a small number of devotees in the U.K. Some of us were enjoying great picture quality (at its best, very close to DVD), and 5.1 sound for at least five years before DVD was introduced.

And the new 3D is nothing like the systems that cinemas tried in the past - it's not the same technology!