Discussion on:

Stop being duped by the 3D scam

Link to original post:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/hiner/stop-being-duped-by-the-3d-scam/7983

3D is not a scam, it is just being done badly. One problem is that producers and directors are used to working in 2D and changing to 3D requires different composition and filming. This problem is similar to the change from B&W to color, the directors were using shading to set the drama in B&W and using the same techniques in color did not work as well.

Even further back, the change from silent films to sound tracks on film changed the way the audience percieved the actors. Some silent film actors that were wildly popular could not make the change to sound because their voices did not fit the sound expected by the audience.

3D done well can be a very immersive experience, 3D done badly will cause eyestrain and headaches. There are also the 3D gimmicks such as pointing an object at the audience that was lampooned by Second City Television many times.

It would be better to point to the successful 3D movies and games than to brand the whole thing as a scam. It will take time for the industry to work out better ways to view 3D and that is happening now. What the 3D movie industry needs is a director with the caliber of Hitchcock to craft the scenes to have depth that pulls the audience into the film combined with technology that gives the audience feeling that they are viewing a natural form of 3D.

That means that other 3D movies are gut wrenching horrible or your definition of excellent is absolutely different from mine. This is not a XOR tho...
Seriously were you being sarcastic?

Hopefully your comment was tongue-in-cheek. I doubt that the entire, multi-billion dollar per year movie industry hasn't realised that they can simply apply an in-built effect of every video editing software under the sun to solve this problem.

they want to save money so they do the cheapest option available. money pits forever remain money pits

Can you really expect a difference in your viewing experience? The flat screen is the flat screen! There are multiple studies that have been made that 3D actually makes people sick, gives them head aches and may cause other issues for certain people. 3D is really a scam to lure people into thinking that they need to upgrade their video equipment again.

So it takes headaches and a drop in picture quality before a small proportion complain. I haven't had enough experience of 3D to give a definitive answer.

However if you go to an imax show in 2d/3d you'll find that 4:3 (fullscreen) is actually far superior for immersing than widescreen. Our pupils are round, theories put forward by some universities about holding fingers and peripheral vision are absolute rubbish, it's physics . And as if those black lines top and bottom, can't be avoided. I have a theory that hollywood wants you to have a far better experience in the cinema to increase their revenue and so will do things to make tv and home viewing worse. This may well now include 3D.

IMAX HD's (the current best IMAX standard that you'll see in most theatres that have IMAX 3D) aspect ratio is 2.20:1, which is a much closer ratio to 16:9 (widescreen) than it is to 4:3 (not widescreen). And, by the way, 4:3 is absolutely NOT more immersive than 16:9 - that's crazy. Films have been shot in widescreen for a long time because it IS more immersive. The only reason that 4:3 even still exists as a standard is because the first TVs were square. It also has nothing to do with pupil shape, widescreen is closer to "real life" (and therefore more immersive) because your eyes are lined up horizontally - you see farther left/right when looking straight forward than you do up/down. If we had one eye or our eyes were laid vertically, then yes 4:3 would be more immersive.

I don't know where you watch your IMAX, but you should consider another venue if they're projecting in non-widescreen aspect ratios!

Man was I ever disappointed with "The IMAX experience". Having seen REAL IMAX here in San Diego at the Reuben H. Fleet (Originator of the format known as OmniMax) I couldn't believe that shoving a screen into the faces of the audience and using a pair of 2K projectors to pull the aspect ratio closer to television was supposed to be anything like 70mm film projected on a huge screen. The "Screen Door" effect was appalling, and adding 3D to it as an afterthought is a second step backward. I will take 2D on a Sony 4K projector over ANY IMAX, 2 or 3D, any day of the week...

I have seen many attempts at 3D and IMAX kicks all other technologies to the curb! IMAX was the 3D pioneer and they continue to put others to shame.

Dude, your pupils are round indeed, and each one INDIVIDUALLY provides a roughly round image with alone would fit better with a square screen. But most people have 2 eyes, positioned horizontally, the image the brain assembles from this 2 round samples is longer horizontally than it is vertically, and this not taking into account the obstacles that your own face provides like the nose. Specifically, humans have max FOV of 200?? horizontal - 140?? Vertical, and that's a rectangle.

140/200 = 0.7
3/4 = 0.75
9/16 = 0.5625

Based on your FOV numbers, that should mean that 4/3 aspect ratio is much closer to normal vision than widescreen 16/9.

It seems perfectly reasonable therefore to suggest that 4/3 (all other things being equal) actually would give you a more immersive experience than 16/9.

There are many that will never be able to "adjust," as you put it, to 3d. My wife has tried several of the different techniques they're employing (including the glasses-free version), but every time it has triggered a massively debilitating Migraine, which even her strongest meds cannot touch.

I will never purchase a 3d tv or go watch another 3d movie.

@dgalbreath

I'm sorry but I have to call bull pucky on this claim. Are you speaking from anecdotal accounts or can you cite a source for this claim? The leap from B&W to color is not analogous to leap from 2D to 3D.

Be that as it may, to claim that one merely needs to "get used to it" is factually inaccurate as well. Do a search for Roger Ebert's entry on 3D titled: "Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed."

3D technology is functionally incompatible with the way we see and the way our brains process information.

You know I'm really sorry some people can't watch 3d without getting a headache but I have never gotten a headache watching 3d. It must not be "functionally incompatible" with my vision or all the other legions of people who watch without a problem. Even if Roger Ebert says so! Case closed.

You have already. First to analog television... the brain got used to poor color, flickering, etc. At least in most cases. TV was an overwhelming success. It changes again at the dawn of the digital age... poor quality MPEG was very hard to watch at first. But the brain adapts very quickly.. not in a handful of viewings, certainly, but over the course of regular exposure, of course it does. Its a survival mechanism... the brain works around any changes in sensory input, much as possible. Obviously, someone with a medical problem that makes long exposure difficult will not give the time to adapt, just as a person lacking depth perception won't bother.

All of that is entirely different than the business issue. For Hollywood, sure, 3D is the latest way to get you into the theater. And yeah, they have abused it (not with "Toy Story"... that film wasn't shot, period, it was modeled and rendered, and the 3D version was re-rendered with the proper stereoscopic prespective). But they need something to get me into the theater. After all, while they have been shrinking screens and switching from film to 2K video projectors, I have put a 71" TV in my house, with 7.1 surround, 2K video (standard HD), much better seats, etc. And the popcorn doesn't cost $5. 00 a bucket.

As for the CE industry, they're still high on the cash generated from years of the shift to HD. I have bought four HDTVs, on PS3, four HD tuners for satellite, five HD camcorders, countless bits of software, BD-R drives, etc. To get myself into HD video viewing and creation, over the last 8 or so years. Now I'm prettyy much done.

And not looking to repeat this for 3D any time soon. I don't think home 3D is worth the investment yet, even as a viewer, even given that I need only upgrade my TV. Active shutter glasses are not a good answer, neirther is alternate line polarization. But its fun to watch what they come up with. This early stuff will be collecting dust soon enough, just as early HD gear is today.

Besides, I'm waiting for home 4K....

The first color broadcasts (I was there to see them) were really poor. The color appeared to be nearly all green or red tints, for one thing, and the clarity was muddy. I can understand if someone got a headache watching it, although I don't remember anyone in our family getting headaches. For one thing, people will sit and watch new technology even if it's bad, just as long as it appears to be better than what it replaced. I imagine if it did give people headaches that they still sat and watched...

The early color TV's were very sensitive to color settings, and would drift over time. The color settings (done with a variable rheostat on the back of the set) did need frequent adjusting as the CRT aged. It wasn't the fault of the broadcasts, it was the sets. As the technology matured, things got better. Improved electron guns, better masks, transistors instead of tubes with less 'drift'. the list of improvements goes on and on. TV in 1980 was much better than in 1970, with crisper lines, better resolution. In turn, TV in 1970 was much better than color in 1960, which was fuzzy and often 'off color'. In fact, it was the late 1960's before TV shows were all broadcast in color. In the early 1960's, a black and white show appeared sharper than a color show on the same set.

Progress. There is room for a lot of it in 3D. Maybe in 20 years or so.

I can remember seeing my first color TV broadcast. A neighbor had bought a color TV and invited his neighbors, including my family, to see the Rose Bowl Parade. Everyone who watched was WOWED. WHY, we were not comparing the picture to real life, we were comparing it to B&W. For all of us, for the first time in our life, we got a glimpse of what seeing the Rose Bowl Parade in person was like. As for those that say 3D is not lifelike enough, watch an outdoor scene on your TV, then look outside and try to tell me the picture on your TV is just as good as what you see outside.

3D technology as it is presented today is functionally incompatible with the way we see and the way our brains process information.

Fixed.

To say 3D is incompatible with the way we see and function is to say you live in a 2D world. So, unless you live quite a ways from the rest of us (dimensionally), I'm betting that's not the case.

"Color TV actually made older folks sick"

Source(s) please.

We see in 3D every day with our own two eyes. Does that mean that everyone is sick? and twisted? Err, I mean... have headaches?

the problem is in timing. You don't consciously see a different timing in the frames when looking at a 3D movie, but the timing difference is still there.

At a subconscious level, the neurons still have to deal with it. You see at the same time in real life, in a 3D movie your two eyes are seeing with a difference of a few milliseconds. This creates a jitter in the visual cortex. Your brain has to smooth it all out. More sensitive people will have trouble adjusting to the differences. This flicker can cause headaches, or even seizures in some people. It is a real physical problem. Increasing the frame rate up to over 400 FPS should solve the problem. But that would require the movie to double the bit rate and storage.

Considering that the standard timing is 24 FPS in movies and 60 FPS in broadcast TV. That the timing in 3D is doubled to account for the alternating left eye, right eye viewing, so that each eye views at the same framerate as in 2D. There is something "Wrong" with your math or your logic.

Snickering at people who get ill from flickering lights is just stupid, ignorant and very unmature!

When I was young we looked at stereoscopic pictures, but now it is called 3D, which is a misnomer, as we don't have three eyes, thus elevation information is not that good with just two eyes. Computer-generated, or recorded, so called 3D can easily make a lot of us dizzy or sick, as the resolution is poor, the colours are poor, and the update frequency probably is low (just a guess, but quite possible), which for those with fast retinas is a problem - I got terrible headaches running certain games on my Risc-OS machine as they had a lower CRT update frequency than normally. 40Hz was just about where my eyes still tried to keep up, higher frequencies and I had no problem!

We, the wife and I, have a few 3D films (you need glasses of the green&red type for those), non very impressive, as the colours are worse, as are the resolution, compared to the normal versions.

If you have the modern type of 3D glasses, with Kerr-cell shutters, the TV has to be able to output images very fast (over 200Hz), to not be felt flickery by those with fast retinas.

So if you have fast retinas your eyes try to keep up with the flickering light of the TV, or cinema - in a cinema normal frequency is 24 pictures per second, aka 24HZ, but if you're going stereoscopic (aka 3D), you need 48 - quite a tall order! I guess the movie companies cheat some way, or other, and then the flickering becomes worse, and those with fast retinas will get nasty headaches, just as with fluorescent tubes, which flicker a lot, but most people don't notice, but some do, due to their fast retinas trying to keep up with the flickering - the rest give up at once! Those with fast retinas develope headaches in fluorescent tube light, while the rest, like me, with sadly slow muscles in their eyes don't notice anything special!

Just because I'm not affected doesn't mean I fully understand other's problems! Only a young oaf, who thinks he knows all, would be sacastic when someone tells about their wives problems. Get mature, kid, grow a beard, get a girl, and be a little bit civilized, PLEASE!

-

The standard movie timing is 24 FPS and broadcast TV is 60 FPS. That the timing in 3D is doubled to account for the alternating left eye, right eye viewing, so that each eye views at the same framerate as in 2D.

My children, my friends and myself all enjoy 3D movies,I payed $700 for the 71" Mitsubishi 3D, and buy all the movies used, for $15 or less.I've yet to meet these people who get sick, but I feel for them. Out of the box th
TV needed a contrast, edge, and brightness adjustments, but Avatar 3D on demand via Comcast was the best movie filmed in 3D

I have not yet seen a successful 3D movie or Game. When you can point me to a Multiple projection unit that kicks a hologram out into a Tank, or even onto a table for viewing, THEN I will think 3D has progressed beyond the simple layering of today.. It sux. Period.

I tend to agree with the author that 3D is a gimmick (I don't agree that it's a scam - I think that's too strong an assertion).

I don't think your examples of moving to sound and then to colour are equivalent to the move to 3D. Introducing sound and colour were significant, undisputable steps forward. The same can't be said of 3D. As stated by the author the picture quality is worse.

I also don't buy the argument that directors just aren't using the medium well enough. 3D has been around for decades. Do we really believe that the medium id great, its just that no director in the past twenty years has been able to get it right? And even if you do believe that, does it matter? The end result is normally a worse experience. It doesn't matter if it's a worse experiece because of the medium, or the director's inability to adapt... it's stil la worse experience.

Personally, I'll continue to go along to the movies twice a year and will gladly watch something in 3D. I find it to be a gimmick, it looks cool in places but overall I find it detracts from the movie because I'm constantly aware of the fake effect.

Avatar got away with its 3D viewing because it was new. The scam part is forced path to 3D, just like the forced path to Wide screen. I like the large screens but never liked wide screen. Wide screen flatens the most movies not shot for wide screen. And wides screen doesn't add much more scenery. I dread the day when all HDTV are 3D unless they're true holographic images then I'd great.

If you're watching non-widescreen movies and they're "squished", you don't know how to use your TV. Worst case scenario should be the movie's picture doesn't take up the whole screen, but it should still be proportionally correct with black bars at the sides. Therefore, you're not losing anything. Plus, if a significant portion of your home movie collection is not widescreen, well that's jsut a stupid choice! You should've been able to tell for many years now that the standard was going to be widescreen and you might as well see the whole image rather than pan & scan 4:3 bullcrap that we used to have to deal with.

Many movies from the 50's onward were widescreen movies, and 16:9 is not nearly as wide as they were. A projection machinist one learns that there have been hundreds of formats, but luckily, just a few are common, but 16:9 is not! Go see The Bridge on the River Kwai in a cinema, and then on a HDTV, and you see that the TV is much squarer than the movie - Patton is another one that xomes to mind. Presently 21:9 TVs are the 'in' thing, not 4K.

At least the guy who wrote the article cited some examples. Put a list of your top 5 products for the technologies you mentioned.

I should know personally that changing the way the brain thinks or sends thoughts can hurt. I had my skull split open exposing my brain. I thus lost all memory or as I phrased it I lost contact with the memory matrix my brain built chemically in the brain cortex. As I started to learn things, the little things like language and how to eat and have the food end up in my tummy not my lungs was easy and not painful, it could have been medicine that did not let me experience pains of re-educating my brain. 2 years after I got out of the year long hospital stay I started going to Collage to learn again how to program computers. In high school I had educated myself how to do this. In my second year I started getting massive pains in my head as I was reconnecting with my memorys of HP BASIC and Pascal . I also got pains as I recalled personal memory's. For 3 years I was digging through my head for memory's. After that I stopped mainly because a PET scan revealed why. It was a lack of blood to parts of the brain that needed to reactivate existing memory's in dormant chemical chains of memory's and the process of making chemical chain links to these memory's. I also got these pains as I learned to walk again, I had to train my brain to use a visual balance system since the the vestibular organs in my inner ears where damaged beyond repair.

Much of my recover efforts were from my desires, the doctors just pointed me in the correct direction, and I desired to figure out ways to recover. Or I would have remained a Veg in bed as they expected.

I doff my hat to you, sir! Impressive, no qustion about it! I just suffered a traffic accident in 1990 that turned me into a cripple - the doctor said that 'You'll never drive a bus again', but I've now been doing it for close to 15 years. So while the road towards the old life is long and cumbersome, it also gives you a lot of new insights and experiences.

I actually think my traumatic experience was good for me, even if I never again can go trekking. It made me a humbler, wiser person, quite different from the bitter me from before the accident, that kept me away from my job for eight years.

I think a traumatic experience in life is good for you, too many, and you become no wiser! I would love to have two normal legs, but I can live well with what I've got!

A single display blasting out 3D really isn't going to do it. I want to turn my head left and right and see the scene unfolding around me if it's going to be more immersible than 2D. When the car rushes down the road, I want to look left and right and see guard rails rushing past, I want to look backwards and see cars and road disappearing behind me. Make the action take place on the front screen but results trace naturally above, below, beside and behind.

And, do it in such a way that not wearing the headgear or lacking the second view point to measure depth results in a perfectly viewable 2D image.

3D TV has been trying since the sixties (I think I read that was the first go around for it). We may be better off to simply put that effort into immersion rooms or proper VR.

As Neon rightly (to me, at least) states, the magic of 3D comes from being able to look at what I want to see - so looking at the desk rather than the lamp should allow me to see the desk in 3D - unfortunately, the director wants me to look at the lamp, so only the lamp is shown in focus and the desk is blurred - it is this, amongst other things, that causes the headaches - our eyes are constantly on the move taking in information and sending impulses to the brain to interpret - when we move from one object to another our eyes adjust focus automatically. 3D movies don't allow us to do that, so instead our eyes overwork to bring focus to something that can never be brought into focus.

VR experiences are different - the interaction between the glasses and the 'environment' always ensures that whatever the glasses are virtually pointing at is in focus - shifting your eyes without turning your head produces the same result as a 3D movie - out of focus objects.

The only way that 3D can ever be truly immersive is for the glasses to contain an optic reader to determine what you, the user, are looking at, and then through relevant logic processing bring that object into visual focus - a challenge considering the brains processing speed, and the speed that the eye can move from object to object.

Personally, I love 3D for what it is at present - a richer, slightly flawed, visual experience that is far from maturity, but on an amazing journey over the years to come.

Hey, but what do I know....?

Traditionally, the author / director / producer (whatever) is in control of what is to be the focus of the story. This is true regardless of medium. Books describe objects and people, giving you relevant info and only providing enough background detail to give you a sense of the environment. Same with movies, music, plays, stand-up comedy, you name it.

In a complete 3D environment, the view would have to change based on what you're looking at -- in the x, y, and z axis. This would be very difficult to do in live action, because of the need to capture all angles of all objects on-screen(?), and of course the sets would have to be 360 degrees around the viewer. Also, I'm going to assume actresses in dresses would be out of the question.

In rendered worlds it would be easier, but how much time do you spend modeling items the viewer was never meant to examine so closely? The burden would be immense!

It seems to me true 3D would really only be possible when you can feed a computer the objects in a scene, and it can visually create that environment in complete detail, in real-time, at a resolution high enough that our ability to discern flaws is below our threshold for suspension of disbelief.

So, maybe still a gimmick for now.

If you haven't seen a football or basketball game in 3D in your living room, you're missing out. You can actually see how the players are positioned on the line of scrimmage, in a way that lets you see the plays unfold in a totally immersive way. With basketball you can see bad calls, like when a player swipes at the ball, gets called for a foul and he never even made contact. I have played Bioshock 2, Crysis 2 and Mass Effect 2 on my PC which is night and day in the level of immersion. On the PS3 I have played GT5 and Batman in 3D, both of which add another layer of realism that you can't get any other way. We already have 7.1 DTS sound, 1080P visuals, 3D is the next frontier for more realistic movies, TV and games in the home. Obviously I am one of the VAST majority that don't suffer headaches when watching even after several hours!

This is well said. 3D is being done badly. You would think that after the 50 years that 3D has been around (yeah, I saw some of those 3D horror movies in the 1950's) that they could do away with those darned blue and red glasses! Finding another way to do 3D would be real innovation...

On Apr 22, 2011 @ 7:36 AM (PDT) sboverie@... posts - headed "DISAGREE" -

"It would be better to point to the successful 3D movies and games ..."

but sboverie@... points to nothing, while attempting to contradict an article with specific examples.

Come on fella, It's time to put up or ...

The author stated his opinion and I stated mine.

You say you disagree, it's not a scam, its "just being done badly".
So, what is your deffinition of a scam...just curious

This is similar to audiophiles moving from mono to stereo. Early on, the push was simply to showcase the technology. The technology worked, but content producers felt compelled to make us listen to ping pong effects alternating between speakers. It took years, but once content providers (and consumers) got tired of the simple novelty, we finally started getting good content. Today, nobody expects anything other than stereo. Time will tell whether 3D survives, but if it does, it will have to win on content and a truly more satisfying experience - just as stereo finally did.

I think this is a far better example than the b/w to colour and silent to audio examples.

If you've ever listen to those "stereoized" beatles recordings they sound horrible. For a while the industry tried to produce stuff that showcased the new technology with varying results. Yet the industry finally settled down after the initial gimick stage and started producing content that is now the standard. This was done without any real change in the underlying technology.

3D could go either way, but some of us enjoy the gimmick and will be happy to see it played out. Eventually I think we will move fully to 3D just because the profit motive for companies. Consumers want 3D and are willing to pay for it and I don't think that is going to change on a large level. The only question is will it be a vinyl to CD sort of change or a mono to stereo change.

BTW I always thought the main motive for 3D was that it was harder for 'pirates' to copy as it is only distributed on bluray (which is meant to have better cp) and you can't exactly take a camera into the movies to copy it.

I must admit that navigating the scam is difficult - even for the technically proficient; but if you do your homework, you can get 3D pretty cheap. My 61" LED DLP was already 3D ready - I bought four glasses in a set for sale, and a Panasonic low end BD 3D player, and I can attest that this medium is very entertaining. I didn't notice poor coloring, and very few artifacts in the movies I watch. I only buy true 3D movies - not 2D converted films. It would be silly to do that, when their is software to do that in you PC already. You can watch any movie converted to 3D with some of the better player software now. I've never done it, so I can't witness whether it is worth it or not. I would think it would be a good conversation piece, none-the-less!

For those who are having problems matching their equipment in planning for 3D conversion go to TRU3D to research your choices. This will allay a LOT of the headaches in this difficult environment. I don't necessarily advocate any site for ordering the actual equipment, it is just that it is next to impossible trying to find the proper equation for these devices. I'm not an advertiser, and have absolutely no association with any industry what-so-ever. I'm just a happy camper with my old settup. You can get much better products now. And WAY CHEAPER TOO!!

It doesn't hurt to swing by Consumer Reports to read the latest test articles for 3D equipment either; they are a little behind, but can still provide insight into your plans.

(edited) Apparently TRU3D has been either bought out by Samsung or the store has thrown in their lot with them, as they no longer offer full information in mixing and matching various brands. It is a sad developement, because I was having a terrible time with this, until I learned from that original site how all this tech works. Going to forums just didn't do the trick, but apparently that will be the only choice now - good luck with that! Consumer Reports can help with some of this, but was still lacking information the last I checked - which was many months ago.

Jason, et al: have you been to ordinary 2D movies lately, within say the past several decades? The amount of mindless drivel is astounding. Visually sharp, brightly colored, and fast but imbecilic action scenes with ridiculous plotlines are the standard. So be fair and don't hold the worst of 3D content to a higher standard than 2D content, which is mostly crap. And what about the commercial 2D television scam? Even the best movies are chopped into disjointed fragments, interrupted with ludicrous (if not intellectually offensive) sales pitches, and overlaid with station logos and moving advertisements. Where is your argument against the scam of hardware manufacturers trying to sell you newer 2D televisions? Where are your argument against the DVDs or Blu-rays that start with obnoxious commercials? Aren't those scams?

Getting beyond a distaste for poorly made 3D content, why is high-quality 3D content a scam? A small minority or persons, and Jason Hiner's claims clearly indicate a minority, are 3D-media blind due to their physiological response or their eyes-to-cortex idiosyncrasies. But that is no more a scam than selling color televisions in a world where a minority suffer from some form of color blindness. Most of us have biologically robust 3D visual sensory systems and can take great delight in the immersive and informational aspects of quality 3D media. Leave us alone, without all the "scam" badmouthing. Are you 3D-blind but possess common sense? Then don't buy 3D media or attend 3D presentations! You have plenty of other options. Nobody holds a gun to your head and says you must see a re-jiggered phony-3D Toy Story if it will trigger a migraine, just as nobody force feeds you the chocolate that most enjoy but which is another common migraine trigger.

Worse than 3D-blind (which sufferers can't help) is 3D-stupid. There's an information source called "The Internet" by which savvy shoppers educate themselves about the products and services for which they shop, and discerning 3D aficionados shop for and view quality 3D-source media. As with 2D content, the bulk of so-called 3D content is appalling to watch, for example, "The Lion King" in which a flat plane depicting a lion is at a different 3D distance from a flat plane depicting a meerkat. It is cost prohibitive, when not simply impossible, to re-render most 2D content into visually satisfying 3D. However, content created in 3D is beautiful to watch, for example, the family-fare animation, Cars 2. In my home, I delight in the 3D beauty of Avatar and Tron: Legacy, the story-line failings not withstanding. Perhaps better, the three fulltime 3D channels I receive on DirecTV provide beautiful, intriguing, and informative fare. Meanwhile, I await a Blu-ray release of the 3D version of Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, which he shot in 3D.

So cease and desist with the "scam" appellation for what I and a great many others enjoy. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and stop pushing technological hate-mongering.

I agree with Disagree. We should look at better ways to watch 3D rather than treating it as a scam.
I would like to see 3D improved. There should be more content natively produced in 3D to catch up with the myriad of 3D 'hardware'.
I wish the electronics industry could settle for a good 3D standard to help consumers avoid all the confusion.

Generally when something is done poorly, AND they're trying to fleece the consumer for even more money, for it, it falls into 'scam' territory

I've seen a documentary about how the film distributors protect their business against copyright violations. The 3D cinemas were presented as a big step ahead: they don't need to watch the people in the cinema and catch those using camcorders at film premieres, because the recorded images are blurry. I believe this is the main reason. Also, it allows the filmmakers to introduce more video effects, thus covering the lack of intrinsic artistic quality of most movies. Sad, really.

All you need is a high quality polarizing filter to defeat this.

If you get the camera wearing the glasses, the video will be sharp. You would need to make a filter (or two, if you're trying to record in stereo with 3D camera or two standard cameras) from the glasses for the Dolby Labs process. For RealD, you need a good circular polarizer... if you have a polarizer for a modern camera, that's likely circular, and will get you one channel.

The most effecive copy protection they have today is this phase tweaking thing on the audio. New and upgraded BD and maybe DVD players will mute the audio after 20 minutes, when they detect the CP signature.

I've never heard of it. Google searches aren't providing much. This new?

I agree. Avatar was was just Disney's Pocahontas without the singing and adding some left over props from Alien. Excellent recycling, dreadful film. As for the 3D experience, I had to switch every 20 mins or so from having my prescription glasses under the 3D glassess to viewing with the 3D glasses only. Most disconcerting. Glad it wasnt a good film that I had to concentrate on.

When the movie first came out I heard two extremely accurate descriptions:

- Pocahontas with blue people

- All the cool things from James Cameron's other movies included into one; military gear from Aliens, light-bright aliens from The Abyss. And that assault on the tree would be a mirror image of the beach storming in Full Metal Jacket if it had Ride of the Valkyries blasting over loud speakers; except that's Kubrick's work (was that Full Metal Jacker?.. can't remember now.. been a while).

You have to include Fern Gully in the list of Avatar predecessors: Humans are destroying a pristine environment. One human becomes one of the natives (He is shrunk to the size of a fairy). This change wins him over to the natives plight, etc.

are always in homage to the visceral impact of 'Apocalypse Now'.

for me to collect the film is that it was supposed to be the first film using the new high resolution digital CGI. I suppose I'm a sucker for anything that is an industrial first.

I fell asleep about a quarter of the way through. Had a decent nap tho'.

The only thing about Avatar that really stands out in my mind is how a God can actually exist in the physical world, with a globally spanning network and all creatures able to connect to each other. It's my thought that the entire story was written to support this, and if the Pocahontas story was used, it was only because the director needed a workable story to support the God he created.

Real innovation and invention will come soon enough. Jason is right on the money with the view (pardon the pun), that 3D is a scam. It's worse. It's classic fraud. Less than %20 of most "3D" features brought to us from Hollywood actually contain shots in 3D. Until I get a holographic 3D "tank" I can put in my living room, I'll just say no to 3D.

Less than 20%? according to who? You? Where's the proof? Links?

I have 3D in My Living Room, at No higher Expense than a Regular System, except for the Active Glasses, and it also is Internet capabl, can get Facebook, Netflix, AND HBO ON DEMAND 3D MOVIES !
.
3D Movies, by either my Cable Provider 9you need very high bandwidth), or from My 3D Blu_Ray Player (an $80 player that does everything a Regular Player doe, except it too can work off the Internet)
.
IS STUNNING !
.
The 3D is Better than in the Theatres, Avatar from HBO on Demand had blow-Away Flying Scenes, and the Cirque du Soeil IMAX 3D Converted for Bl-Ray TV was omly $15 on Amazon, and just Plain Knocks Your Socks off !
.
Now you can't Mix and Match pieces ... Another reviewer in here is doing great with his All-Panasonic System, and I am doing Great with my All-Vizio System, All Delivered by Amazon.com, Free Shipping, and NO Sales Tax !
.
I save a Bunch of Money over Buying a regular Widescreen ata store, more than enough to get 4 pairs of Active Glasses (Vizio, of course, ALL must Match).
.
So, thou who thinks it is a Scam, thou art Dead Wrong !
.
Sorry if it Didn't work for You !, MY Living Room is THE Place to be !
.
Douglas boucher
.
Summa *** Laude IS University of Texas
USAF electronics technician,
Texas Instruments Precision calibration Technician,
Ticketmaster Director of South Region IS,
Owner: Computer Asssistants (Maui)
.

like that in the theater robs half the vertical resolution to display the 3D affect. This is what I read in the tech journals anyway. You can buy a Vizio or LG 3D HDTV that features similar technology, except it isn't DLP projection tech like the theaters. From what I read, this makes little difference in the result.

I agree that home systems are superior to theaters in that regard. I see very few problems with my setup, and it is pretty ancient now(2008).

No, it doesn't. In the theaters, they usually use passive glasses systems, that do NOT halve the resolution. That only happens on passive TV sets. Active and multiprojector or Zscreen passive systems have full resolution.

I wished I had a link, because that is not what I'm getting. The new LaserVue DLP has the same three DLP (dark chip) multi-projector, and I read it reduces vertical resolution also.

in 1986 at the Expo here in Vancouver, there was a Discovery BC pavilion.
had a theater in it, 90 foot tall screen by 180 feet wide, floor to ceiling and wall to wall.
curved to follow the wall of the theater.

The 20 minute show they put on it could induce vertigo in several scenes.
a very memorable short for that.

and it was NOT a 3D film.


since I don't have any interest in the poor programming being offered by the networks, I'm not going to be buying no 3d tv unit.

and no way will I spend money going to the theater to see a bad movie.

If that was the 'flight' from the west coast to the east coast of Canada in 20 minutes - boy, do I remember that one. I was sick for at least an hour after that!

It was Bell that hosted the show, with eight projectors set up in a circular building, and were told to hang on to the railing that ran across the hall, from side to side! We were told a lot of people had accidentally fallen while watching the show!

The problem is the visual cues, especially from our peripherial vision - like when the height over the ground suddenly changing (as we see it on the screen - naturally it's the cameras that are lifted) or then the sea suddenly is leaning (the helicopter carrying the cameras is banking away. These don't agree with our sense of balance, so the brain trieds to figuree it out - for some of us the muscles just follow the command of the balance sensors in our inner ear, and stay rock steady, as long as the ground is intact, some use visual cues to a much greater extent, and fall, and yet others become dizzy as the brain can't really figure it out.

I didn't get dizzy that time, but I am not a roller-coaster fan, as that really muddle my senses!

Otherwise, totally agree about 3D TV - much lower resolution, at least as yet!

waiting for 3D without the glasses, which is already on 3DS devices. The SMART people are buying the right equipment and movies that display TRUE 3D. Just because a lot of folks don't think 3D is worth it, despite good quality; doesn't mean folks who do are stupid!

I don't get the issues that people complain about - but then I got the right equipment. If you want a really good 3D experience - Consumer Reports recommends the Panasonic Viera TH-50PZ700U for the best 3D experience; but I've not paid a penny more for my equipment than any of the other average systems put together. If you shop smart you can get away with it, and it is really a no-brainer, if the cost is close to the same as other setups.

The only extra expense, was the 100 dollars or so I paid for a set of four shutter glasses for my 61" DLP set. My particular arrangement works nearly as flawlessly as the Panasonic sets, with only one artifact in scenes with bright back grounds. I don't see any of the other problems associated with 3D, because I pay attention to CNET, CU, and Amazon user reviews.

For so much return on so little investment, I think a person could be STUPID for NOT buying into 3D! The kids that watch and enjoy my entertainment heartily disagree with this article's assessment!

Aren't wasting their money or vision on 3D! Why buy a new tv, and have to buy 'glasses' to watch it? If 3D was so sucessful why hasn't evey movie since it's creation (3D) been made in 3D? Why, becuase it ruins the movie, makes viewers sick, costs more to produce and people don't want it.

realize that regardless of whether it's in high def or 3D, on CRT or LED or plasma or LCD, most of the programming is still crapola. Springsteen still said it best: "57 channels and nothing on."

My 3D works Great !, and the technology wasn't around til now.
.
You just gotta make sure All the Equipment is from the same Compny (including the Needed 3D Active Glasses, AND that the HDMI Cable from Player to TV is 3D capable too.
.
properly Done, this stuff is Stunning, and Makes the Movie !
.
I hope All Movies come out in 3D now !
.
Pks, You are Lost !
.
Douglas Boucher
Summa *** Laude in IS University of Texas

Just go to TRU3D.com to mix and match - it really takes the headache outta the equipment selection process!!

(edited) TRU3D has capitulated to the Samsung brand and is now almost worthless in this endeavor! Sorry for the misdirection, but things do change rapidly in this economy now!

I paid less than the standard get up even with the glasses; my people LIKE it. I find it entertaining. Where is the loss in value there? Only people who hate it don't want it, but it costs nothing more to have it? I don't get the complaining. You DON"T HAVE TO WATCH IT if you don't like it or want to!!

Just because you tried to buy the best 3D setup currently offered for a reasonable price does not mean 3D is anything more than a gimmick. The fact that you mentioned the 3DS's "success" with 3D proves you don't have a clue. Why do most people turn off 3D on their 3DS's? Same reasons as always: eyestrain, framerate is half of non-3D, games look worse in 3D because it requires twice the processing power (and therefore the Dev's of the game have to make it up by reducing the shaders, resolution, etc when 3D mode is on), many people can't even PERCEIVE the 3D effect on the 3DS anyway... the list goes on! It's a gimmick on TV's and it's even more of a gimmick on 3DS's.

Current methods of simulating 3D do not work without tricking two eyes into triangulating depth. Why the heck would a smart person buy into a technology implementation which doesn't actually provide the promissed 3D visual depth for them? It's kind of like saying parapalegics are stupid for not buying cars with the latest advancement in foot pedal technology isn't it?

and my statement is hinged on the fact that the price comes with the equipment as standard now. Why avoid buying something that the kids or other family members would enjoy just because you don't like it. It literally cost nothing extra now. 3D blu-ray players are dropping rapidly in price, but are now bundled with the glasses when you buy the set. To me it is a no brainer, and I really enjoy the entertainment. I get the value myself.

These moves look way better than an old parlor trick with the old card viewers from the 1800's.

I can't help resenting the inference that we 3D enthusiasts are somehow stupid for buying into something that quite literally cost us not one penny more! And quite enjoyable to boot!

Just because you think a technology is not of enough added value to you or not mature enough doesn't mean it 's automatically a scam, and doesn't mean we're being "duped". We can see with our own eyes what it looks like and we can decide whether we find it adds value to our entertainment or not, and we can decide for ourselves whether or not to see 3D films in the future. Or, if you are a total reactionary, you simply stay the **** away from 3D films altogether and you'll never know if you'd like it or hate it.

A scam is an act of someone offering something that you simply won't get. The studios offer you the illusion of 3 dimensions, that's more or less what we get. It has a long long way to go but it's a lot better than it used to be. Whether it will ever be GREAT is entirely debatable, but whether or not it's a scam is NOT.

Call it what you want, but manufacturers would just love for you to dump all your 2 year old HDTV stuff and buy the amazing wonderful 3-D TV's. Thier business model is to get you to buy something new every couple years.

So they push 3-d. And while it might be an interesting effect, it really doesn't add all that much to the experience. 3-d is something that gets "rediscovered" every generation. People gawk, then the interest fades. So they are pushing hard this time, but many of us aren't buying. If they try to force it on us, I'll just find something else to watch, like my computer. Television being mostly about "The Jersey Shore" and infomercials these days.

and it is completely up to snuff on current quality on 3D. I was needing a blu-ray anyway, and the price was actually cheaper than most regular players at the time. I got the glasses(4 of 'em) on a huge sale on Amazon for under 100 dollars. Now they come bundled with kits for WAY cheaper. What is 'forcing' it on you when you can actually buy bundled deals cheaper than ordinary devices just a year ago?

So...it's not a scam it's just being done badly? Isn't that the point of the article. It's bad quality at a premium price? That sounds like a scam.
But you know, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you don't think it's a scam and that's fine. BTW, can I interest you in some quality muffler bearings? Yes, they are expensive, but these are way better than the older generation muffler bearings.

I was reluctant to buy a 3D TV because I thought it was a scam. However, a local store was having a sale on the LED TV I wanted while I was in the midst of my family room revamp. It is 3D, but was not really significantly more expensive than the 2D version, and came with a decent Bluray player. So in the past 4 months, I've used the 3D glasses exactly once: to watch 1 period of a playoff hockey game in "simulated 3D". It actually kind of added a "new dimension" to the experience (LOL).

and the point is, it didn't really cost you anymore than some comparable devices. At least that has been my experience.

My issues are probably already stated, but here goes a list of why I personally won't jump on the bandwagon for a LONNGG time.
1] I want 3d without needing electric power at the glasses. No batteries, no cords, no wireless. In other words, PASSIVE. I already hate the monthly expenses of supplying AAA and AA batteries for so many other electronic devices, so these viewing glasses get the same disdain. Cords? I don't want to untangle cords, I don't want to trip over cords. ZERO cords. Zero helmets, zero electronic contacts, just say no to electrical viewing devices.
2] I do not want to purchase a specific model of 3D viewer (TV/Monitor/Smartphone) only to find I'm the proud owner of 'HD DVD Revisited' or another 'SQ Quadrophinic' audio system. Too many competing (and, from what I see, mostly incompatible) systems. ONE design is about all I want - the ONE design which meets all my personal needs.
3] I already have a collection of 45 degree polarized 'glasses' which I have collected; I get them from those cinemas which charge extra for the movie - I figure that I've purchased them.
4] I wonder if all 3D formats/designs willwork on people with Amblyopia, so that issue might be one sword to cut the market down. I have severe Amblyopia, and the 45 degree polarized stuff DOES work for me.
5] 'Yet Another Forced Obsolescence'? I STILL have 3 analog TVs. My satellite service does not provide subscription HD content. Will 3D content obsolete my current HiDef LCD TV? It could, and I won't write off the loss. There once was a day when parents gave their first married child the family washer, because appliances lasted so long and were so serviceable. I have never told anyone that I wanted to see my appliances obsoleted, and I never will say as much.

I have motion sickness and even watching a HD show sometimes is enough to get my stomach churning. I'm a salesman's worst nightmare; I know what I want (and how much to pay for it ) and I refuse to pay for gimmicks or features I don't need. I haven't been to the movie theater in years (WAY to expensive, $15 for a large popcorn and soda? You got to be kidding me!! It cost you all of 50 cents to make it!); I'll wait till it comes out on Redbox, on-demand or buy it on DVD if it is a movie that I'd watch over again. Speaking of that, I guess it's time to upgrade my TV from a 13" CRT now... Guess I'm too cheap since it hasn't broken yet

I go to the drive-in.

We've got The Big Mo eight miles away. $7/adult, 3$/child. Gets first-run moves on two (soon to be three!) screens. Bring your own food and drinks, although they would prefer you buy from the concession stand. The hot dogs are good. The pickles are awesome.

If I want to drive a few miles further, there's the 25 Drive-in in Greenwood. $5 per person, but $8 to bring in your own food. I've been for the movies, but have never eaten there. I'm told by the locals that the food from their restaurant is to die for, and the prices are reasonable.

Might be a bit of a drive for you, though...

I haven't seen one of those in years now.

All of the ones here have been closed and sold to shopping Centers for the Land.

Col

Good stuff, man. I get over there at least once a year. I can't believe a drive-in in the sticks runs first-run double-features, but somehow they do.

for me, there's the Rodeo - www.rodeodrivein.com

They closed the only one we had, which was 75 miles away, just a few years ago. I imagine it takes one hell of a DLP projector to light up one of those now; because film movies are gone.

HDTV's mostly now have HDMI or VGA inputs, or 22" and 32" LCD monitor screens. I got my 22" with stereo sound and Webcam for under $200 3 years ago. And they make HDTV's as big as 73" retail. And in Japan they are working on Ultra HD and that is four times the detail as HD. And that is as good as your local 70mm theater. And with Dolby 7.1 the sound is getting close also. In 25 years you may not even need to go to the local IMAX. That is if you can afford a home with that big of a room. And the projector may even fit in your pocket next to your cell phone if they are not implanted chips by then.

And this has what do do with 3D or scams?

We're down to 36 ppi for 60" 1080p screens, so let's get 'better' 2D and then maybe apply 3D to those screens (though I couldn't care less about gimmicky 3D). See - http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/19/sharp-shows-off-the-worlds-first-super-hi-vision-lcd-with-16x-m/ - with say, 7680x4320 px and 73", 85" or 108" screens for an immersive experience.

I think there will be some backlash robo, I don't think 3D (at least not in its current iteration) will be to 2D what color was to black and white. The issue is that 3D isn't an actual organic experience, but a highly flawed method of tricking your eyes into thinking they're viewing tangible 3 dimensional objects. Until they provide a more natural experience, I don't think it will be a game changer.

Give it time. I've seen the 3DS and it looked to me like flat characters placed in a 3D diarama. I am not surprised. It's not a "scam" or "fraud" it's the first time a 3D screen without glasses has been sold in America.

Do you remember the very first gameboy? We have come a long way right? Remember how the first one had that terrible contrast dial on the side? The screen would change brightness at different angles. When you put money in to a product it gives the manufacturer the ability to make a better mousetrap. The technology will mature and you will eat your hat.

I really don't know about the rest of you but I am sick of all the scams like this one that companies have been getting away with for years. When all this digital stuff started I bought a Sony Minidisc Player/Recorder but guess what? They never produced any commercial discs with music to listen to so they fell on their butt with them but we were then stuck with a product that cost a lot of money for nothing. In more recent times they try to get us to buy Blueray players and recorders but guess what? I still don't see enough commercial product out there to justify spending the kind of money they want for these machines, so no thanks. Next is 3D and the same slow or non-existent product introduction, so again...no thanks! Also we have Android phones which go off on their own and start applications and network time which costs customers money for nothing they started themselves...more scamming and theft! I'm sorry I ever bought my Android phone. Oh and back on topic, I live in Denmark where the quality of programming is so poor that I gave my TV away, again my way of saying..No thanks! Great thing about money is that its highly portable...you can spend it anywhere and I'm sure if you really shop around you can find things to buy which are not a scam.

A good movie is a good movie, is a good movie. Be it 24, 48 bit RGB, or grayscale or even 3D.
But be honest, do you want to see the Jerry Springer show in 3D, or at all?
There seems to be a similarity to Denmark, here in Switzerland. The TV-programming is bull crap. (most of the programs are from Germany... the best of them are the tax funded ones, the commercially funded ones started to produce their own content, instead of showing cheap B-movies from the 70' and 80'... like when they started)
When my trusty old CRT broke down, almost 10 years ago, after 10 years of service, i repaired it. (a 10$ spare part, a squirt of coolant spray, a degree in electronics and a Ham radio license...)
Since then, i see those ads of flat screens, HD-flat screens and now 3D flat screens and even LED-screens. (we have real LED screens, but they need 10 kW for 384x240 pixels...)
But all the time, the programming got worse. Do i really want to see this crap in HD, or even shell out the money for 3D?
There will be good movies in 3D, but i see it more in the national geographic, or imax niche.

A good director with good actors and a good plot doesn't need 3D.

Heck, i could even read a book... and do the animation in my brain.
(That's why my library was more expensive, than all the technical crutches, i could have bought as an early adopter...)
((I bought a CD player, when it was almost a month's salary for me back then, but i loved music. Still do.))

but then technology would never advance either, so at least some of us "dupes" are financing the future. HA!

Manufactures are pushing products (Sony Minidisc, Blueray, etc.) that really aren't better or a improvement of the first product. This 3D tv will turn out to be the '8-Track' of the '2,000's'!! We are going to replace our DVD libary with 3D DVD's? I don't think so. Remember manufactures we did that once with CD's (replacing software and hardware- LP's/Record Players to CD's / CD players) I doubt in these economic times everyone has the money to buy your new 3D tv. People will remember how quickly CD's were taken over by MP3's (why carry abunch of cd's -$10,$15 bucks a piece, batterier-they ran out fast spinning that cd and the volume) . I'll save my money (my 'tube' set looks fine, HDTV isn't needed since I have cable and no 'digital anntenae' scam either) and wait a year or two till they figure out what is going to be what!!

I tend to put money into a product because of what it can do not what future generations might be able to do. My obligation is not to sponsor corporate R&D costs or features released on a marketing schedual. That might be just me though.

This technology is so old, it's not funny. When I first viewed a 3D TV at Best Buy, I described it to the salesperson as a big Viewmaster. You know, the viewer you used as a kid to look at those scenic places in 3D. And THAT'S been around for 65, count 'em 65 years!
Now they are trying to tout it as something new. Well, I have been saying that it's the same fecal matter, painted a different color.

Old wine in a new Bottle - only the bottle is new because of current 'development'. Of course, you now have the accompanying 'sound' in 7.1 or even 9.1 for enhancement and this is pure pleasure. If done well, excellent! If not, loads of headaches - not to forget the time, effort and the monies wasted. However, this would look good only on a big screen and not on the 60" 3D 1080p TV screen. The 'Sellers' are there to entice you with all gimmickries but the 'Buyers' have to be aware and not taken for a ride by hyper and over advertising (s)kill of the vendors.

As the proud owner of a couple of 19th century stereoscopes and a stack of photos, some of which were taken pre 1900 by my grandfather, I can say that they were excellent producing crisp 3D images with just a little exaggeration. I have only watched one 3D film (on a TV) and watched nearly all of it without the glasses it was so bad.

It looks pretty good on my 61" LED DLP! Maybe I'm just too easy to please.

You are at least 65 years old. How's the eyesight?

Roc Riz you are DIZ !
.
The 3D TV in My Living Room IS True 3D ! just watch the Cirque du Soleil "Ascent of Man' Blu-Ray ($14, Amazon), and THEN tell me it is Stereoscope.
.
You couldn't be more Wrong !
When they swoop down towards you it is No Stereoscope, I assure you, the Movement and Action is as Real as can Be !
.
Now on some movies, different depths of say the Forest in Avatar "seem" like Stereoscope, ad they are different distances away, but not in those Flying Scenes they aren't ! The depth of Field is REAL, no layered images about it as they swoop and soar around the hanging mountains and trees.
.
See you have +16 Votes. LOL !
.
That is 16 people that haven't seen whata Real 3D TV can do.
.
It is important to know you can't mix and match equipment. I have all Vizio ... TV, Blu-Ray, anad Active Glasses. Another reviwer that experienced the same as I had all Panasonic.
haven't rum into One 3D Blu_Ray or HBO on Demand movie that didn't work. And though Vizio says it will work with regular 3D Glasses, that is Not true. You Must have the Active Glasses, paired to the TV or DVD Player, and All pieces (Including the HDMI Cable), Must be 3D.
.
But Folks, this stuff is as real as If you are in it, at least in My Living Room !
.
Diz here has it ALL Wrong !
.
Douglas Boucher
Summa *** Laude IS, University of Texas

My wife and I avoid all 3D movies and believe it's just a waste of money. I'm going to spend the money on upgrading to Blu-ray at Home instead and enjoy the movies the best way possible.

Most folks don't realize it's not exactly new technology. It was tried in the 50's. Yes, 1950's. There were 3d movies on tv. Didn't need a special tv. Just the free cardboard glasses that came in the newspapers to hype it.

The 3D of the 1950's used colors to create the effect so the picture was essentially monochrome. The current 3D used in theaters uses polarized lenses so you can see color. It's a much better experience.

Bill

You don't know what you're talking about.

Ever since Dr Land invented sheet-polarizing material in the 30s, all but a literal handful of 3D films have used polarized projection and viewing. The red/green or red/blue glasses have been limited mostly to comic books.

... perhaps less bad? The problem with the polarized images is that unless you can keep your head perfectly vertical, and the glasses parallel to the screen you introduce additional errors into what is already a half quality image. I saw several movies (including Avatar and the new Tron) on the big screen, in 3D and 2D, each time I had a headache in less than 15 minutes of 3D viewing. The theater management was kind enough to allow me to watch the movies in 2D, and all had better image quality, and no headache. One of these days we will have the "tri-dee tank" system that the science fiction writers predicted, something akin to holography, or maybe a star trek like holo deck where we can see the movie like actors on a stage, without the use of glasses and their attendant problems, but I, for one, ain't holing my breath waiting

There are multiple 3D systems in use; only the primitive ones H/V polarization. The RealD system uses circular polarization, left for one eye, right for the other. The Dolby Labs system (forgot the name) uses color multiplexing -- the glasses get the right color bands to each eye. And of course, most home systems use time division multiplexing and LCD shutter glasses.

There are certainly issues with all of these -- at the least, each eye gets only half the light it would have, viewing the same thing in 2D. But the head tilt problem is well solved in modern stereoscopic projections.

"There are multiple 3D systems in use; only the primitive ones use H/V polarization."

Actually, the original systems used 45/45 polarization -- tilting the head introduces less crosstalk.

I've never had problems with 3D comics or movies. Guess I'm a "freak".

In fairness, no one needs 3D. If it succeeds, it will be because of 3D sports TV. Football, soccer, basketball, lacrosse would all be more involving in 3D.

I herd back around Valentine's Day that this summer pr fall ESPN is going to start a 3D channel. I can see it being good in football or soccer, oval stock car racing, I could have more fun buying a game. But I care less about that. But for some they may like it And I'd like to see 3D female bikini beach volleyball. A real test of if they are real or silicone.

On DirecTV, ESPN 3D is channel 106.

I never understood what was so special about 3D. Yes it is fun for the first couple minutes or so but after a while it starts to mildly strain my eyes and just isn't pretty to look at anymore. The picture's much better without 3D and who really wants to wear those glasses? Even the new 3DS from Nintendo looks like crap and strains my eyes after only a few minutes. It's innovation done poorly that they're still trying to sell regardless of it's quality.

Today's 3D is no better, and worse on TV, than the 1953 movie "House of Wax." I guess the current generation has to learn what us geezers learned back then. On reflection, I think we must have been a bit smarter then, because the 3D fad didn't last as long then as it has this time around.

Jason- Good article. It frustrates me because it seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors rather than an honest attempt to provide the consumer with a superior product. Thanks for laying it out so well.

@mhickma and in the year '2525' we all became robots. I'm sure you would enjoy that also. I just want to enjoy a movie or tv show without needing a 'barfbag'. Just because it's there (Remember SST airplanes? Regular airplanes were still in service. Now SST's are no longer in service) doens't mean EVERYONE will like it or use it (regular airplanes were fine for me). Give me a option, don't SHOVE it down my throat!!!!

Just because out 2D sets are going to be eventually replaced with 3D doesn't mean the current products are going to be what does the replacing!

Mechanical TV is actually a good example. When it was the only thing available, people bought it. When Farnsworth debuted the electronic television camera and reciever, it marked the beginning f the end, and soon after the mechanical TV was no more than a foot note in history books. At some point a clearly superior technology will come forward, and as color television did to black and white, 3D will do to 2D. It just hasn't come forward yet.

How's the Prof?

I think 3D does add significantly to the movie and game experience and it does represent the future. Playing the Nintendo 3DS is absolutely spooky cool. It's a new level of realism you'll never ever get from 2D. So if 2D is where you want to draw the line that's fine. I'll take high quality 3D over 2D any day. I haven't been bothered by headaches either. I just want the price to come down.

I can't abide 3D, I nearly heaved my guts in a Currys PC World when a salesman talked me into trying this all singing and dancing 3D TV and modern glasses. I left the store with a banging headache. I have had a couple of mini strokes and now have poor blood supply to my eyes and 3D screws with my sight something awfull. It only served to reenforce the feeling that you should take anything and everything a salesperson tells you. 3D should really come with a health warning.

The difference between real innovation and something like this is how long it lasts.. People may be slow, but when the novelty wears off, they are much more discriminating. Once the initial excitement wanes, 3d will be cast aside just like it was the first time it came around.

James Cameron is going to push 3D very hard now. He wants to make it his legacy. 3D quality will improve as some of the directors now are pushing having their movies shot at a much higher framerate. I think 3D is here to stay.

Until we have holographic projections (like Star Trek:TNG) there will not be any 3D worth considering at any price!

The movie industry flirted with 3D a long, long time ago. People got sick, theaters needed equipment upgrades and the whole thing got so bad that the entire industry started looking for something to replace 3D on the "silver screen." Enter Panavision and other wide screen technologies. Binary visual ques are not the only thing that can reproduce reality...wide field visuals do almost the same and happily 3D movies were displaced by Panavision and Todd AO! It's just that rasterized devices can easily switch quickly and display 3D with the appropriate glasses...albeit with a loss of brightness, sharpness and color saturation. Today's 3D is no better and it too will pass. Viewmaster and real stereo photography (with say Kodachrome in a David White Stereo Realist camera) suffered none of these quality drawbacks...each eye had it's own, full brightness and high resolution color image. You do it a disservice comparing it today's 3D technologies.

Since the beginning of 3D decades ago, there have always been complaints of headaches and nausea. As you said in your article, 3D is cute and gimmicky but hardly enough to warrant going full 3D all the time, with or without glasses. If the studies are correct and the results are announced to more people, it will eventually burn out as in the past.

Jason is correct. Thanks for pointing out that the 3D emperor has no clothes.

Well written article. I never even thought about this untill your article. I will not be making any 3D purchases in the near future. Thanks

Michael
http://mashed-up-droids.com

We'll assume the author(s) aren't biased like Mr. Hiner. Right?

Thank you, Jason Hiner, for putting it into words for me. My first 'argument' against 3D was "just how many times can I be 'wowed' by things coming at me?", later it changed to "you want me to pay HOW MUCH for that tv and then I have to wear these goofy glasses to make it work?" Not withstanding the need to purchase more glasses for others to experience. Perhaps it's a case of The Emporer Wore No Clothes and I'm just not illuminated enough to appreciate 3D, perhaps, but I'm okay with that.

I completely agree with everything in the article. But I also agree with progression and evolution as robo_dev mentioned (mono to stereo, black and white to color, etc.). Someday 3D will be more of a standard, but it will be a while, and I doubt it will be anything like the "3D" of today. It seems like true 3D would be more of a panoramic all-around you experience. But would you really want to watch most movies/shows like that? If you are constantly having to turn your head in every direction, you could miss something. Or a lot of somethings. And get an achy neck.

One thing is for sure, we're definitely not ready for something that involved to be delivered digitally, even if the technology itself wasn't that far off. The file size for something that big would probably be exponentially bigger than current Blu-Ray movies and would need super fast broadband to stream or download in a timely manner.

3D movies I've seen were not worth all the hype. And of course, the need for glasses that are unique to each Manufacturer (i.e. there are NO standards) further shows 3D is nowhere close for prime time.

Whenever I watch 3D movies in a theatre I feel like part of a Rube Goldberg machine; many moving pieces must work in harmony to produce the desired result. Generally the result is a little better than disappointing. I work in the software industry, and have seen many "hot technologies" make life more difficult than easier. So, I'm familiar with the shepherd mentality of a large industry; lead the sheep to it and they will graze.

But, to me, where 3D is really valuable is in 3D still images. For example, the Nintendo 3DS can produce (albeit very low image quality) 3D digital snapshots. These snapshots are only visible in 3D on the Nintendo 3DS. I am looking forward to more single-user 3D experiences like 3D cameras and 3D digital frames. I really like the 3D snapshots of me and my family.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/ff_sony_howard_stringer/

This link and story is important, and relevant to your question, "why does the industry continue to push 3D". I think it is because Sony Time Warner is driven by a CEO who is a content pundit and feels like this is the silver bullet that is going to save a badly faltering Sony - which has become first and foremost, a content company - a BIG one, that the rest of the industry pays close attention to.

My daughter likes movies in 3D, and I'm OK with them. Once the novelty wears off, though, I've noticed that the effect becomes transparent. Watching Rio in 3D recently, it just wasn't any value add to the movie. The only time I noticed the 3D and that 3D added to the image was when I consciously paid attention to it, which was a distraction from the actual story. Neither of us get sick or get headaches - but I'm not sure it is actually WORTH anything more. Additionally, your observations about the quality of the picture and the richness of the color saturation are spot-on. You're wearing sunglasses - things are going to be dimmer.

But home TV 3D... we were at Sam's Club last night, and my daughter tried the 3D demo for a TV, and she responded, "The 3D isn't very 3D". There you go. If you can't reach my kid with this tech, you're going to have a real hard sell with it anywhere else.

@dcolbert: watched "Gnomeo & Juliet" a couple of days ago and at one point I do remember noticing that the 3D effect was somewhat "commonplace". But maybe that was because I was a bit bored with the movie, probably the "least good" of all those I have seen since the current 3D craze began.

Have to agree on the 3D tv comment - well, if it is anything like 3D computer screen content which I'm sure it pretty much is, since I haven't yet had the privilege of watching anything on a 3D TV yet, but a computer distributor recently demoed a 3D movie on a laptop and I put the glasses on... was unimpressed.

The part that really killed the 3D big-screen concept for me was when I learned that those TVs can only control 6 pairs of glasses. Wait, what? Yeah, six. So much for having a big TV and a big TV room so you can invite all the guys from work around to watch the game, then, eh?

From the media corp's perspective, they're already trying to limit video viewers to a single person at a time.. technically, your rental from the local shop it not licensed to watch with the rest of your family members if you read the fine print. And if you invite a friend over and they bring food, that could be argued as "paying to view" by a cunning lawyer unless they don't share the snacks with you at all.

Being able to only support limited numbers of glasses is a "feature" from the content owner's presepctive.

Is a very definite company-wide initiative at Sony. They do 3D BD players, upgraded the PS3 for 3D films and games, pushed it into TV, both pro and consumer camcorders, even Sony's media creation tools (Vegas, Blu-print, and later this month, DVD Architect).

I'm less annoyed at the 3D push than I am the opportunity cost. I can always not use 3D, usually withno downside. But what are we not getting, that we might actually want instead?

And I'm not totally against 3D. I saw Avatar both ways, the 3D really did add to the expericence. So did IMAX. There will always be haters.... you can still find large groups of people claiming SD is just as good as HD, or LPs are superior to CD, SACD, even BD-Audio. The big failure so far of 3D is delivering so many marginal experiences, between fake 3D films and marginal home systems, that the naysayers may prove effectively correct and kill any chance for good 3D to prevail.

I do not understand the hate for 3D. What happened to "everyone has their own tastes"? Just because you decided that 3D does not improve YOUR experience does not mean that everyone else must also decide such and stop having better experiences with 3D.

Some people get motion sickness? "Too bad, so sad.". They can forgo it. You do not want to wear 3D glasses? "Too bad, so sad.". Do not use it. However, do not tell everyone else not to use it while using wording that makes it seem like you are insulting those who do use it.

This entire article is just ridiculous. While 3D CAN be gimmicky (just like everything else), the entire 3D experience is not a "huge scam". I can not believe people are complaining about it when the praise the iPad and Wii, which are far more gimmicky in any sense. If you want to talk about "badly-overprice gimmicks", talk about Apple products more, but this time not praising them as if they are some of the best devices on the market.

Are you really basing your opinion on one experience? Maybe the T.V. that you had just had poor display quality. As a game developer, I have played games in 3D on a $250 3D monitor, and it made the game look much SHARPER, not "muddied". Most decent monitors cost around $250 anyway. Also, I always enjoy 3D movies more than 2D, at least in movie theaters.

I could go on and on, but my main point about 3D is that if someone's experience is improved by 3D, why is that so bad? Are you actually going to try to say that they "just THINK they are enjoying it more"?

I think some of us on here are missing the point of the exercise, which was stating that this is an incomplete technology which they are trying to get us, the consumers, to subsidise. Why on earth would we, any of us, want to pay outlandish prices for anything until it is complete and works as it should with enough programs and movies out there to make it worth our while? So instead of sniping at anyone or everyone on here because they don't share your enthusiasm for 3D, just try to lok at the bigger picture and you'll see that this an honest article which is non-Its a scam!biased and just tells it like it is. It IS a scam!!

Prefer good old fashioned 2D. I amone of thoise who gets headaches watching 3D

This article is a bit insulting. I understand that the current 3d isnt your cup of tea but that doesn't mean that those who actually enjoy it are being duped. In the future, ,please find ways to give your opinion without insulting readers intelligence.

Very insulting, the money I spent on my 3D tv is well worth it. Of course I waited for the tv I wanted (5 stars) to come down in price. 50" for $800, very good deal!

You have already spent the money! So you go and have fun with that juicy rationalization that 3D is money well spent. If it makes ya happy (and not dizzy or ill!) then good for you. To each their own. I'm staying as far away as possible. But that's just me. I have better things to spend my money on...

Would you care to enlighten us all on what we should really like and enjoy in our lives, since you have determined that we are incapable of making good value judgments for our own lives? And while you are at it, your highness, this humble and unworthy subject would like you to tell me how I should live all the other areas of my life. Please help my feeble and useless mind to be reprogrammed with what you deem worthy values to have about everything.

can buy into 3D without paying any more extra than any other shopper who wants a minimum of 50" or higher HTDV and the obvious need to have a 1080p capable BD player. It is true that separately you can now get a regular BD player for 60 bucks; but the right bundle deal will get you the same price in 3D. What is not to want from that?

My beautiful plasma screen didn't cost any extra for its 3D capability, and it came with a free set of glasses. My 3D capable Blu-ray player didn't cost extra either, though for the price of a postage stamp, I sent off the coupon that came with it and received a free copy of Avatar in 3D. It's beautiful to watch, ignoring the character and plot flaws, which are no worse than those of most overwrought 2D movies. My DirecTV package includes three fulltime 3D stations at no extra charge, and a substantial portion of the content is excellent.

My only extra cost was for some second generation glasses that are lighter weight, charge even faster, and have 10% better light throughput than the already fine free pair. I don't buy crappy re-jiggered 3D content (or crappy 2D content either), and greatly enjoy the quality 3D media that I purchase or view.

For all you poor wretches who experience headaches, strokes, dizzy spells, palpitations, dropsy, eefus of the geefus, or crotch limpness, I'm sorry for your misfortunes. But you won't choke so much with anti-3D apoplexy if you stop throwing up all your sour-grapes at those of us who can and do enjoy the delights of the current 3D technology.

I totally agree that the colors seen in 3D are pale and lack the vivid level as seen in 2D but this is caused by the gray polarized lenses in the 3D glasses. I saw the movie Avatar in the theater twice when it first came out, the first time in 3D and then in 2D. I did not enjoy the 3D version at all because the gray lenses had the affect of watching the movie wearing sunglasses. I won't ever spend the money to see another 3D movie again until they find a way to do it without the polarized glasses. I purchased the BluRay version of Avatar in 2D and have watched it six times and it is the best movie in my collection. BTW, I'm still waiting for James Cameron to put Titanic on BluRay, any word on this?

I believe this is the next scam to make people purchase new TV's in attenpt to boost company revenue. I believe the next wave in TV will be more of an interactive one...One allowing us to interact with the TV like we do with our IPads and the internet. Put the choice in the hands of the view. Menu driven programming is the next wave of the future in my opinion.

I cut up my leftover RealD 3D glasses and used them to set up a version of the quantum eraser experiment published by Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=a-do-it-yourself-quantum-eraser). Way better than the 3D effect from the movie we saw.

Don't forget that Sprint is releasing the HTC EVO in 3D this year. I don't really understand what you could get out of a 3D smartphone? I admit that I bought a 3D TV. I wasn't too impressed with it. It does take some getting used to. I think the regular picture is a thousand times better then TV's that were just made two years ago. The problem is that technology changes, and we as consumers eat it up everytime something new comes out.

I just don't see the point of discussing this. You like it?, buy it, you don't like it, then don't buy it.
I personally think it's kewl. Is is the next wonder? nope. Is it new tech? nope. Do I enjoy it? yep. That's all there is to it.

... without discussing it, the industry will probably try to jam it down out throats by eliminating 2D programming completely!

the won't eliminate 2D, with today's 3D players, you don't have to watch the movies in 3D, you have the option. ESPN will launch a 3D channel soon, you will still have the option to watch in 2D. I suppose you could get an old tube tv and watch it in black and white, or let the industry jam color down your throat.

I definitely think there is value on 3D, especially when combined with other interesting techniques out there (such as head tracking). The technology has been out there for a while so I think it's more of a situation where they couldn't make anything useful (besides theater movies) out of it until now.
On the other hand, I am personally more interested in Augmented Reality. Imagine if we could combine 3D with AR and head/user tracking? The result would be some sort of viewing device where you can essentially sit next to the guys running the discussion forum on ESPN right in your living room. Wouldn't that be kewl?

I ignore the talking heads when they come on. Why would I want to simulate sitting next to them?

Would you want to simulate sitting next to them?....

While I agree with you, I think WE ARE THE REAL PROBLEM!, lol... if we choose to be uninformed and let them jam it down our throat then we deserve it!... it's the never ending story of our lives

The current way of implementing 3D has been tried over and over again and will never work. It was done in the 50's and again in the 70's. The problem is that they are using filters to provide separate content to each eye. To be successful, they would need something like the Viewmaster does with separate images for each eye. You'd need some glasses with two separate LCD panels (one for each eye). To make the experience more realistic, they would have to move the picture as you move your head or even move your eyes. That type of technologiy would be very expensive at first, but if enough people bought it, the price would drop quickly.

My biggest complaint is that they are sticking too much junk in the TV and we have to pay for it. I use Tivo DVRs and they have all the "Internet" features built-in. I think the TV should be a simple high-res monitor and the DVR should be basically a computer that can receive software upgrades to get new features instead of having to replace the big screen TV to add new features. That would save a ton of money.

"Count Floyd" on Second City TV showd classics such as "Dr Tongue's house of stewardesses" and showed off all the wonders of "3D." They got it dead right, some 30+ years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF_XE

As Roc Riz said 3D today is Viewmaster from yesteryear. There are other rehashes out there. Quadrophonic sound to replace stereo in the late '60s went no where (don't we listen with just two ears?). And quadrophonic was rehashed to surround sound today (with an additional bass feed). As far as the 3D experience, tried it once at the theater. Never again. All the marketing hype is lost on me.

I am afraid that you are hopelessly misinformed. 3D is not a gimmick, in fact most intelligent 3D viewers resent Hollywood's ham-handed attempts to 'gimmick' 3D into acceptance. The best 3D movies (such as Avatar) use 3D as another cinematic tool to involve and immerse the audience in the story. When the 3D calls attention to itself that relationship is broken.
Also, you are years out of date bemoaning the introduction of 3D to video games: there have been true 3D games available for many years (decades!) and the hardware and software industries have developed together to that end. Yes, there were even DOS based 3D gaming systems.
As far as blurring color and sharpness, yes, 3D takes more video and/or computing power. After all, there is twice as much information to deliver. However, the technology has evolved to the point where these limitations are quickly being rendered obsolete. Your viewing experience with 'Blu-ray on a 240Hz LED TV' would be equaled only by a 3D Blu-ray seen on a 480Hz 3D TV. The good news is that they are already in production! And as we all know, the cost of these sets is constantly coming down.
Your statement 'The images were so sharp and the colors were so bright that the picture almost felt three dimensional' shows that you DO understand that 3D is the MORE (should I say only) natural way to view images.
One more thing - using unsubstantiated opinions to bolster your argument ("A lot of smart people have already sniffed this out and are avoiding 3D entertainment"): to a discerning reader that only further weakens your already spurious position. Of course, citing FoxNews does too!
For those of us who prefer to look at the world with TWO eyes open (the way nature intended) I respectfully request that you reexamine your facts before contaminating the internet with additional falsehoods and deceptions.
Oh, and be sure to get rid of all your stereo AUDIO equipment.

By wearing glasses that filter polarized light or shutter on and off LCDs, we see muted colors as a result. While looking through the "turned on" LCD lens, we are still getting our picture through the lens and the LCDs inside the glasses. Yes, we can see color, but if you were to analize the colors after making it through the glasses, you aren't getting the same color spectrum: the LCDs aren't transmitting 100% of the light.
As a behavioral expert, I'd like to point something else out: Stereoscopy (it isn't really 3D, see comment below) is important when we are interacting with an object, but when we are dealing with distance, it flattens out quite a bit. Since movies are passive experiences, our brains make due and allow for the images to be "real" such that we can have feelings about them. As someone mentioned, when there is a gimmick 3D scene it is a diversion from the "truth" of the scene and reminds us we are watching a movie, and not in a moment. It is more of a trick to get us to "keep up with the Jones" than to deliver a better overall experience.

Moby,

Thank you for your considered response. However, I don't see that your rebuttal justifies the 'missed the point' moniker. The point of the original article was '3D as a scam', and the facts just don't support the premise. 3D is a vital enhancement of the viewing experience, period. Initially there will be costs involved but those are sure to come down as 3d penetrates the market.
To address your point however: granted, there is a light loss looking through polarized or shutter type lenses. The loss from the lenses is more than offset by the gain in perception afforded by using two eyes. As an amateur astronomer I compare the experience to looking through a telescope with a binocular viewer: the result is a spectacular increase in both depth and *color* perception. Try it sometime, you'll like it. I guarantee. OK, you are going to say 'but it's not the same because the 3D lenses reduce the light more than a telescope eyepiece', and while that's true the difference is that you cannot adjust the brightness and saturation of the light from space, but you can adjust your TV! And remember, the technology continues to evolve. Just as early digital cameras with only a few megapixels could not compare with the resolution of film, now the difference has narrowed to the point where affordable multi-megapixel cameras are nearly as good as the best film cameras (and soon that 'nearly' qualifier will become unnecessary).
My remark regarding the violation of 'suspension of disbelief' resulting from through-the-screen gimmicks overused in earlier 3D productions applies to any cinematic trick which diverts attention from the story, not just bad 3D. I agree that stereoscopic tricks don't have anything to do with delivering a better experience, but I am certain that 3D done well *does*!
Thank again for your reasoned rebuttal.

At the last kids movie I took my kids too, I was glad to see the 2D show was packed. All of the parents were saying the same thing. We're tired of paying the extra $3 per ticket for nothing at all. The movie experience does not change only the weight of my wallet.

I have no need nor use for ANY current 3D technology. Going all the way back to the red-green spectacles of the 1950's, all so-called 3D technologies have given me raging headaches after about 5 minutes of watching.

Hiner, I don't know what medication you're on but I definitely don't want any.

I saw Avatar 3D in an IMAX theater and it was utterly flawless.
I saw the CGI movie "Up" in a local theater in a normal 3D presentation and it was amazing.
I saw the latest Toy Story movie in 3D and it was lifelike, engaging and utterly moving.
I know the theater is expensive these days but in these cases it was definitely worth it.

I don't know if 3D is really practical on an averagely sized TV screen but on any decently sized movie screen it works very well as long as the material itself is well made, but works poorly if it is not.

There is no doubt that James Cameron advanced the state of the art massively with the tools and cinematographic techniques he created for Avatar. I was conscious immediately after watching the movie that I'd just witnessed not just a movie but a whole new medium with an deep immersiveness that's never been achieved before. More real than reality, for some people. Did you know that shortly after the film was released there were many reports of people turning up at doctor's surgeries suffering from depression because they couldn't live in the world they saw in the movie?

On the other hand there are movies like Tron Legacy which seem to have been subjected to clumsy post-facto computerized 3D reprocessing and which will give you a headache because the 3D staging is so unrealistic that your brain just can't process the images properly.

It's wrong to tar the entire medium with the same brush. Remember, the very first "talkies" had a crackly, narrow-band shellac disk soundtrack and the first colour movies were awful two-tone affairs and it took decades for a realistic color palette to emerge. If you'd been writing back then no doubt you'd have been saying that film makers should stick with silent black and white.

I'm in no hurry to get a 3D TV, I'd rather have a larger 2D HD screen with good color reproduction and wait until 3D is both good and affordable. But that's no reason to try to discourage early adopters from funding the development of new display technologies from which we can all expect to benefit when they mature.

... for films shot with stereoscopic cameras (like Avatar) but to criticize a technology in its infancy is patently unfair. Each new generation of technology has to have it's pioneers or the technology could never mature into a truly superior product. (The first generation of consumer VCRs were pretty crappy too!)

I flatly reject the notion that 25% of consumers of 3D on the big screen get headaches or nausea or they wouldn't pay the premium price for the experience.

The shotcomings you see in even well-done 3D (like Avatar) are still light-years ahead of the old green & red cardboard classes of just a few years ago. Still, the technique of using polarized light to differentiate left-from-right is crude compared to what electronic projection will offer the viewer in the future.

In the mean time, look for live-action movies shot in 3D - that's where the experience is the best. Avoid cheap 3D animation if you can.

But for goodness sake, give the 3D movie industry a chance to mature.

It's one thing to declare that the technology is not mature enough for you to lay down the extra bucks but it is quite another to call this emerging technology a scam.

Let's start with three facts...

One. People have enjoyed two-dimensional images for at least 10,000 years, without finding a third dimension a necessity. But...

Two. Well-made 3D films ("Avatar", "Up") provide an immersive experience that cannot be duplicated in two dimensions.

Three. It has long been known that many people respond badly to 3D movies, even when correctly made and projected.

None of this means that 3D is a "scam". 3D might not be necessary, but it is, AT WORST, an attempt to pry money from consumers' pockets. What else is new?

3D films will succeed if they are of high quality. (I'm surprised some of the classics from the 50s have not been reissued, especially on Blu-ray.) They will fail -- and 3D will go into hiding again -- if they are not of high quality.

I could go on, but will end my comments to saying that "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" are /not/ conversions of 2D films. They are (presumably) new renderings of the original 3D data, from two "camera" positions instead of one.

At some point, a lot of the "new" technology becomes not in response to a consumer "need", but just another gimmick in a sloppy attempt to increase the bottom line.
Oh yes, but you'll be able to watch a commercial (groan ! ) in 3-D. Big deal !
Somehow reminds me of the huge "excitement" about "push button start" in some of the newer cars........hey!, they had "push button starters" in farm tractors 60 years ago.
Sometimes more is less.

I'm not sure how 3D can take away fromyour movie watching experience since the movies come out in 3D and non-3D formats.

I own a new Samsung 8000 3D TV. I could have gotten a cheaper model just so I didn't get 3D, but I would have gotten a TV with less features and a picture that wasn't as good.

The video games I have played in 3D are spectacular and surely add to the experience of the game. The picture looks the same in 3D as it does without 3D.

I do admit the gimmick of 3D in theatres is a little annoying at times, who wants to see Transformers in 3D? I would rather see it in standard then in 3D so I can get the experience of both. Avatar was a great example of a movie that was better in 3D IMHO.

It is not 3D, it is stereoscopic or stereoscopy. Here's a way to distinguish between actual 3D and what the scam artists are calling 3D movies: In real 3D, if you move your head, you see something different. There is an actual projection of something in front and something in the back, depending on your angle you will see a different view, just like in the real world. With stereoscopy, each eye is sent an image which doesn't change depending on a viewer's location. A hologram is actually 3D, stereoscopy TV and movies are not.
Really? On a Techrepublic blog Jason and everyone else gets this wrong???

I'm waiting to get me one of these, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw, which is glasses free to the extent that it doesn't degrade the picture, deals with the problem of stereoscopy, and looks freakin' awesome. Unfortunately it only works for one person at a time. Fine for gaming, not very social for movies.

Get the facts: The movie industry and Monitor manufacturers are calling this stereoscopic crap "3D". The "3D Scam" is that this artificial way of adding the perception of depth is actually more crappy-looking than without it.

Stereo-optic perception is, by the way, the basis of human depth perception... what you call 3D would still be bereft of perceived depth if there is no difference in input for each eye. Your argument and frustration does seem a bit superfluous, considering that there is no technology available for providing what you insist is the "real 3D".

You argument is an exercise in question-begging. You start by defining "real 3D" as 3D with a moveable viewpoint. Clearly, the human head can change its viewpoint, but viewers of 3D movies have a fixed viewpoint based on where the cameras were. So?
It would be a bizarre and incredibly expensive movie experience that allowed the viewer to adjust the viewpoint. Perhaps we will have it, some day. Meanwhile, EVERYONE understands that "3D" means stereoscopic with a fixed viewpoint. This isn't a scam. It is human language at work.

It doesn't work. I rarely watch TV in the sitting position with eyes horizontal. 3D requires a stereoscopic effect to be really eye popping and most 3D movie cameras use 2 horizontal camera lenses to produce that effect - lost on the couch potato whose eyes are in the verticle position during viewing.

Jason was right that this is just a scam from the entertainment industry to sell you something "new." What many people don't seem to know however is that 3D is not new -- it premiered in movies 60 years ago! After a brief popularity, it died off as the gimmick that it is. People likening it to going from silent to talkies or b&w to color are misguided. And it is not inevitable; as Jason states, we don't have to buy the movies or equipment that they are pushing if we don't like them.

I will not fall for those 3D TV ploys. Just as I will not fall for the 4G phones that are actually overpriced 3G mobile phones. They want my business, give me what I pay for. It makes me feel I'm falling for a scam.

I thought for years that I was somehow just "missing out" on some excellent aspect of 3D because my glasses were somehow interfering with my perception. I went back to contacts early this year (after a 10 year hiatus) only to find that I was wrong; the 3D experience was less than stellar regardless of the eyewear. Preach it brother! Down with 3D!

So true.

Bwana Devil. Quadrophenia. Jumping the Shark. 3D TV.

All examples of technology drivers who have run out of ideas. 'Bwana Devil' was a 3D movie in theaters (in the 50's). I saw it when I was very little, and it was genuine, like Avatar. Filmed in stereoscopy. A marvelous toy. But so what? Quadrosonic Sound: another last gasp by hifi manufacturers (in the 70's) who could not think of any other way to sell more speakers! (Try making them better!). 'Jumping the Shark' stands by itself. Avatar in IMAX 3D was great. At home? Naaaaaah.

"We just want real innovation, and don???t want to pay for badly-overpriced gimmicks and half-baked experiments". Couldn't agree more with that. I still want 3D, and wish I could get it as real innovation at affordable pricing. Holographic display would be even better. Until then, try to play the PS3 game Tumble in 2D versus 3D. You'll see that 3D makes the game. The technology is NOT perfect (or even close), but it allows me to do and enjoy more than just 2D displays. I can easily do without the 2D faked to 3D and other lousy 3D gimmicks, but when it is done right, 3D offers me experiences I want and can't get with 2D. IMAX Under the Sea is close to SCUBA diving when viewed in 3D and pretty pictures in 2D.

Yes marketing again. Now that everyone has polluted the planted by ditching their old tvs and buying the 'HDTV's', they get to do it again by buying another tv- the HDTV 3D'. If you have cable and kept your old 'tube' tv (like I did), now you really have to buy one (sorry, I'll skip it. I have enough problems seeing 2D with my perscription glasses!) to see tv. Just more trash shoved down the American Public.

i have never liked 3D when they started to play it in the movie thetars with thoes red and blue cheaply made glass and really done what that in my home. i have tryed out the new 3DS not very in preste with it. i say that 3d i more then 15 years away when more better for the consumer then it is now. even if if they get better at it i really will not get one enless they found a way for 3D not to give me a headache every time i watch one.

I have vision problems in one of my eyes which means that 3D just looks blurry (even more than it looks to people with normal vision). I've tried to see several movies lately that theaters in my area were only showing in 3D. I hope that trend doesn't continue.

As usual Jason, I /agree with you! I won't regurgitate the excellent points already provided. I Just wanted to state my agreement with you.

... because I don't see in 3D generally. I can only focus both eyes together with considerable strain, so most of the time I only see clearly out of one or the other. In the real world, my judgement of depth is achieved through a sense of geometry, rather than by the confluence of two input streams at slightly different angles. 3D video wouldn't enhance my experience at all.

Stereo vision depends on the separation between our two eyes. This distance, aka interocular or interpupular distance (ID or IPD), varies from person to person. Leaving the kids out of this for the moment, the range for adults is somewhere between 50 mm and 75 mm. That's 2.5 cm or nearly a full inch!

The film- and gamemakers can only work with one IPD / ID, not a range. They usually go with the "average" of between 63 mm and 65 mm.

The farther a person's IPD is from this average, the more strain is put on the eye muscles and the eye itself to keep things in focus. That's why so many people get headaches and eyestrain from 3-D movies and games.

Until true 3-D is developed, that is, a "tank" or viewing area that can create actual, three-dimensional, walk-around-able images, much like a theatre stage, a large percentage of people simply will not be able to enjoy the effect.

I'll wait.

It's misleading to call it "3D". The proper term is "stereoscopy". 3D is misleading because it is overselling the technology.

Our perception of a three dimensional world depends on a great number of things, such as objects in the distance looking smaller; objects in the distance looking less colourful; nearby objects moving further and faster across the field of vision than distant ones; and nearby objects obstructing our view of distant ones.

All of these are already delivered by normal film and TV; and it's trivial for our brains to interpret the depth of the world presented on a 2D screen. Zillions of viewers do it every day.

The only bit that's missing is the additional depth information provided by having two eyes - stereoscopy. Stereoscopy is just one aspect of 3D perception, and to market it as if it is the whole of 3D perception is very wrong.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that stereoscopy only works in nature for close- to mid-range vision. It doesn't help with objects in the distance, and excessive stereoscopic depth may be one of the reasons some people find it uncomfortable.

If normal film takes us 80% of the way to a "real" 3D representation (see my list above), then stereoscopy only takes us to 90%. It's still missing the change of view you get when moving your head. Only holographic images offer that, and only holographic images can claim to be truly 3D.

As for the latest crop of so-called 3D films...... well, it's OK. Interesting for a few minutes, but I'm largely indifferent towards it. I certainly don't like wearing the glasses. What I strongly dislike is any compromise to the quality of the original material, or to the display screen's performance with non-stereoscopic material.

And while we're at it, I say we go back to mono AM radio that FM stereo won't ever last, and get rid of all this surround sound stuff too... I'm sticking with my LPs too, that CD music stuff will never get off the ground...it's all just an unnecessary fad designed to dupe the ignorant into parting with their hard earned dollars. Who needs Blu-Ray, what's wrong with my good 'ol BetaMax VCR? I'm perfectly happy with my 1964 black and white tv with aerial on the roof. Who needs all this new fangled stuff. I like my good ol' rotary dial phone as well.

Just kidding of course... Yes, as an early adopter of most tech items,I was one of the idiots that bought a 3D LG Plasma TV last fall. Certainly while it's a pain in the neck to use the 3D glasses, the effect with some movies is excellent - animated movies make the best use of this technology. Some 3D content just doesn't look very good (ie Tron). But, like it or not 3D is probably here to stay and will probably get better over time, and it will probably morph several times along the way as it matures. The LG 3D tv I purchased in December was pure unobtainium in January... and their new version don't require 'active shutter' glasses that should translate into a huge improvement in an of itself, both in terms of less expensive glasses and brighter 3D images. Personally, I can't way until the holographic tv's come out... Bring on the future!

Thanks, Jason Hiner, for speaking out at risk, being in opposition to a complacent embrace of all new tech.

I went to "3D Images Make Millions Sick, Yet Tech Companies Push On (Fox News)," which was enlightening. The article noted: "The problem is that as the eyes turn inward, they also expect to focus closer. But a screen isn't moving closer, so the eyes have to curb their hard-wired inclination and focus back out. This mismatch between where the eyes think the focus should be and where the screen actually is forces them to work extra hard."

I searched further and found that "...the American Optometric Association estimates that 25 percent of Americans have experienced headaches, blurred vision, nausea or similar problems when viewing 3-D."

My own limited experience with 3D screen at a local showroom was disappointing - it appeared that the foreground/background separation was exaggerated and synthetic, making it almost cartoon-like. I did experience some slight unbalance as my eyes adjusted, so wasn't looking for the drop in resolution that Jason reported. But I know that human eyesight can be tricked into perceiving higher resolution in video compared to stills.

So I can't help but wonder about the potential for visually-induced seizures or less traumatic effects. The current 3D technology does not appear to have been designed to work optimally (or safely) with our vision, and likely sets up viewers for problems now and down the road. I think of my grandchildren when I write this, and hope manufacturers can wait for better solutions.

To the poster who noted '"Too bad, so sad." They can forgo it.' - I wouldn't count on it. Some technologies become ubiquitous - publicly available - before being thoroughly tested.

...but this "post production 2D to 3D conversion" craze employed for films like "Clash of the Titans" sucks major wind. It's like Colorization all over again. I remember the days when AFT was colorizing movies as quickly as Ted Turner would sign checks, but where are they today? Last I remember they had moved to Mexico and started Midtech de Mexico, because having a company in Mexico called American Film Technologies would be kind of crass...and now they have NO employees.

My point is that, as with making black and white pictures into color ones, making 2D into 3D generally sucks. You end up with animated 2D cardboard cutouts sliding around at different layers of depth. It's like making a movie with Standups...and hopefully is a trend which will cease as better, smaller and more sophisticated equipment for shooting 3D to begin with comes down the pike.

I don't completely agree. Most, if not all technical innovations have been financed by us - the consuming public in one way or another. Even if it is the military or NASA that's doing the developing, we are footing the bill. Personal computers have been quirky for decades but they continue to improve with time and demand. If consumers had put their foot down and quit spending, would we be paying IBM for mainframe time to do our computing? I think part of the problem is the demand - there is no pressing need for 3d outside entertainment industry. The lack of real progress is disappointing, but I don't think we should just throw our hands in the air and settle for 2d. Acceptable 3d should remain a goal and that goal is attainable but the pace will be slow without valid business or military applications.

If you expected the color and picture quality to equally good in 3d your foolish. Modern movie 3d is 20 times better than older 3d and it is really neat to see it. Is it a gimmick to earn more money? Duh. But if you ever saw 3d in the past modern 3d is an awesome treat to see how much better it works than ever before. There is nothing wrong with a gimmick that delivers what it says it does. If you expected it to deliver something else you just don't know what you are talking about.

3D is just a gimick and always will be. At least now it is getting us one step closer to holographic imaging.

A lot of the comments are about the same as the ones for the late 60's when we got color TV.

"By the 1970s color sets had become standard, with all-color broadcasts becoming common. Color broadcasting in Europe was not standardized on the PAL format until the 1960s, and broadcasts did not start until 1967. By this point many of the technical problems in the early sets had been worked out, and the spread of color sets in Europe was fairly rapid. Most major markets in North America and Europe were all color by the mid-1970s, and by the 1980s B&W sets had been pushed into niche markets, notably low-power uses, small portable sets, or use as monitor screens in lower-cost consumer equipment and in the television industry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television

I agree with ThomGillam. I purchased a high end Samsung 3D TV a few months ago and the 3D is just amazing. None of the issues that you were complaining about exist. I have quite a few 3D titles and I can't wait until the new movies that are currently being released in theaters are availible on Blu-ray.

I do agree that the 3D experience is less than stellar on some (if not many) films. However, the Avatar I saw was presented in a theater which uses the 5K (forget the exact name) system. It looked breath taking to me. The 3D depth perception was really well done (at least where it was most needed), and the color depth was amazing (at least in certain scenes.) Maybe there's a trick of color pallet swapping or 3D/2D swapping? I have the Blu-Ray of Avatar and it looks horrible in comparison; although I have to blame that on my cheesy equipment (yes digital.) Perhaps if I had a better home theater system, I'd see what you mean. I also saw Alice in 3D and remember how I had a very good sense of depth perception while watching that entire film. Oh and also, I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. The 3D on it looks pretty nice, but I still refuse to pay that much money for a portable system.

Can't comment much on the TV situation. I have seen 2D ones some that look absolutely stunning with a Blu-Ray film. Never took the time to compare 3D to 2D, since I haven't been shopping for a new TV.

I have a feeling that the way 3D is done, for now at least, will not jive with some people's physical senses and mental perceptions. Not everyone experiences things in the same way, even under the same conditions.

At this year's cinema owners' convention, James Cameron held a presentation about increasing the frame rate at which films are both shot and projected from 24 frames per second to 48 or even 60 frames per second. At 48 fps, the strobing, blurring, and other camera affects that diminish the experience, or even cause discomfort, all but disappear. At 60 fps, it literally felt like I was in the room with the actors. The difference is so pronounced that Cameron recognized that, stylistically, changes would have to be made in the way action was shot to maintain the illusion that these weren't just actors on a sound stage. Much like an earlier poster posited, it's similar to the way cinematographers had to change the way shots were constructed when moving from black and white to color. Were it to become industry standard, it really would be a game-changer.

It's also important to note that the people in the industry that truly care about 3D are just as irritated by the sub-par presentation as most of you are. Cameron and Katzenberg preach about how porting 2D films to 3D water down the product, and how the campy "in your face" effects trivialize the medium. They also recognize that light levels are an issue, that putting on polarized glasses dims the picture and washes out some color, and are working with projection manufacturers to increase the power in the lamphouses to help minimize the problem. George Lucas, in porting Star Wars to 3D, has spent more time and money in doing so than it cost to shoot and produce the original film, and says if you can't bother to sink those kind of resources into porting your film, then you shouldn't bother.

The thing to realize is that the modern 3D model is still in its infancy. The directors are still learning. The cinematographers are still learning. The hardware makers are still learning. Cameron is leading the pack, but nobody REALLY knows what they're doing yet. The fact that people are trying to monetize it right now is unfortunate, but I guess it's much like anything. There will be early adopters who are willing to pay more and put up with more to join the party early (that theatre companies de facto force unwilling patrons into this role at times is just sad). For me, I still watch the majority of my movies on 35mm film, in 2D, but look forward to the day when 3D is not new, or novel, but rather is taken for granted as simply the way movies are made.

What they really are is enhanced 2D.

It's not 3D unless and until you can walk around the picture and see what the back of the actor or object looks like.

While much of Avatar was filmed in a computer generated 3D environment where the director COULD actually walk around in it to pick the best shots, the movie itself was projected in enhanced 2D only.

3D does exist in electronic entertainment; but only in video games such as WoW or Everquest, where the participants can actually explore all the dimensions of the virtual environment.

Until the movie and TV industry give people that level of access, they'll just be telling you more lies and stealing money from you with claims of 3D.

In my experience with 3D films, I'll agree that some, like Toy Story 3 and even Tron Legacy seemed to suffer from what appears to be a 3D treatment that was added as an afterthought. On the other hand, you have Avatar, where even James Cameron felt that today's 3D wasn't up to snuff, which is why he developed his own 3D camera system specifically for Avatar. I'm a little spoiled because Avatar was the first 3D movie I've seen since 1983's "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn". Needless to say, I was so mesmerized by the clarity and awesome 3D visuals of Avatar that my large popcorn and soda went completely untouched for the entire film. (I went on to see the original release 3 more times in IMAX 3D and then saw the re-release once, also in IMAX 3D.) If it were showing this weekend, I'd see it again.

My personal agenda from here on is to selectively "boycott" 3D films. If it's a movie that has had greater care taken in it's 3D filming (such as Avatar was) then I would probably be likely to see the 3D version. However, if I do some research on an upcoming film and find that no particularly special efforts were put into the 3D technology, then I'm most likely catch a 2D showing.

My opinion is that 3D (in theaters at least - I don't have any 3D TV experience) works when it's done correctly. Otherwise, yes, it would make sense to let the industry know that we're not going to pay extra for lackluster 3D that doesn't really enhance the movie-going experience. But to say that ALL 3D is bogus or a gimmick is a ridiculously narrow-minded suggestion.

Hiner, not sure about the tv's you tried out, but I love my Panasonic Viera...no scam here, of course it's plasma/24p. The images literally pop out of the screen!! Even my 3 year old daughter tried to walk up to touch the images...not realizing they weren't really there. If that's not enough to impress you...you are insane. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but companies have literally spent millions (realD, Mitsubishi..more) on research the involves some serious optics physics. Overall, you are just a complete moron!

And people fall for it too.