I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm.
I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced.
In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended, which often involves focusing on the foreground or the background... once in a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare.
The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all objects in the shot appear in focus.
In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that good 2D shots can often attain.
3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.
In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze.
So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
3D film is unreal in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial cue.
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D.
Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.
> There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.
When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics.
On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus.
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.
I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.
You are forgetting that 3D TVs were not just for films. I use mine for games and while compatibility is a bit spotty, it's mindblowing how good 3D games look on a 50" 3D TV. Forget films, games are where it is.
The horrible thing about watching something like Avatar in 3d is looking at parts Of The shot youbare not meant to, they are blurry and you end up with a headache.
> 3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects.
Apparently you've misunderstood either 3D (or more accurately stereoscopic) vision, depth of field, or both. Cue detailed HN-worthy explanation of each... but frankly, you'd be better off perusing the myriad of resources available on these two subjects.
Yeah, no - it wouldn't be great. I love seeing movies in 3D. Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.
You know... if you take 2 of those 3D glasses (you criminal!) and swap out the left lens for the right lens between them, you can make 2D glasses. That way when you go to the movies, you and a friend can share different views during the film... one with the right view and one the left. If you have friends with differing viewpoints, it might help... as long as they don't like 3D either.
It seems ridiculous now that you can get 4K TV sets for a reasonable price now and yet all the cinemas are touting their "New" 4K projection technology. Either bring back film or start projecting at 8K+.
3D films give me a headache. I think it's something to do with a slightly lazy right eye. I've not actually been to a blockbuster theatrical release in the better part of a decade. There were plenty of films I would have gladly payed a ticket for, if only they were released in 2D.
I think 3D is so much more of an effective gimmick in movie theaters than at home. It's kind of a "special" thing to go out to a movie, etc. so I think the effect kind of works there.
3D at home... on a smaller screen... just doesn't work as well as a spectacle.
I went to the IMAX at the zoo in MN and watched Jurassic World in 3D. It was amazing, and actually made me want to see more movies like that. It was much nicer than the standard IMAX.
They had a preview for The Walk and that preview showed the true depth of 3D.
Outside of IMAX cinemas, it seems ticket sales for 3D movies are lackluster as well (compared to 2D showings of the same film at the same location). Not sure if it's the actual format or just the 3D surcharge.
I imagine smaller chains opening new locations may pass on adding 3D capability to their theatres in future, however many may continue showing 3D films on the equipped screens if only to justify the extra $15k/cinema in equipment they were hustled into buying while making their mandatory 3D conversion.
It contributes to story if movie designed ground up for 3D specifically. Actually, the only movie I have seen in this category was Avatar. The environment, colors, action scenes are all designed to look better in 3D. Other movies I watched have always ended up with poor experience.
I'd be pretty happy to never see another terrible chase scene that has been crammed into a movie where it didn't need to be, just to justify showing the movie in 3D.
3D != 3D. If they can do away with non-IMAX 3D, I'd be happy. The typical cinema experience is just crap - especially because the brightness being usually cut in half compared to the regular, flat movie. But IMAX screens I actually enjoy (even though I wear prescription glasses, which makes watching 3D movies a tricky problem in general).
I wish more movies would be done like Superman Returns.
It was plain old 2D except for a handful of scenes where they flashed an icon in the corner to tell you to put on your glasses. You put them on for a minute, saw some cool 3D effect in an action scene, and then you took them off before you got a headache and before it affected the rest of the movie.
I have seen a lot of 3D movies on LG OLED sets (Gravity, Mad Max), and it's remarkable. Much better than 4K UHD. With the latest LG OLEDs, you get 1080p per eye, bright smooth motion, and the passive glasses are cheap, lightweight, and you don't have to charge them.
VR is hard for most directors to handle. Steven Cameron (Avatar, Titanic) likes pans over detailed backgrounds. His 3D is done with a light touch - nothing ever appears in front of the screen plane. That looks good, which is why "Avatar" launched the 3D boom. Cameron wants higher frame rates so those long pans don't have strobing.
Too many other directors use 3D to pretend they're doing a roller coaster simulator. They put stuff in your face to make people feel they go their money's worth viewing the 3D version. That's just painful.
Next to go down: VR headsets. The technology has been working for years now and there's still no killer app beyond 3D shooters.
IMO 3D killed itself. I personally think 3D is great, and have invested in a 3D TV and a bunch of movies. But they had a marketing problem with active vs. passive. I would tell people that I have a 3D TV, and their response is "I would hate to spend $250 on glasses." I would remind them that a passive model uses the same glasses as the movie theater and we would just bring the glasses home.
Nowadays 3D movies are harder to find. Force Awakens came out on 3D six months later and only after a fan revolt. Let me tell you the 3D was better on my TV than in the theater.
The only saving grace at this point: VR. Samsung is making VR cool and hopefully Apple comes out with their own VR set. VR will bridge the gap until they build a no-glasses 3D TV.
I believe to be in the minority, but I actually enjoy watching movies with passive 3D glasses. The problem for me was lack of easily accessible content.
Out of curiosity, did anyone here regularly use the 3D features of a television? I've seen them used to good effect for various demonstrations and interactive displays and such, but don't know any regular end-consumers who used the features regularly (despite knowing people who owned the televisions).
I have watched a number of movies in 3D on our Philips TV and it's a very good experience, much better than in the movie theater. I tend to buy the 3D Bluray version of movies when available.
I also tried to take the 2D version of some movies originally made in 3D and use the TVs own 2D to 3D conversion feature. While it obviously causes some artifacts and sometimes adds depth where it doesn't make sense (mainly TV screens inside the movie) I found that it worked surprisingly well.
Primarily, though, my wife and I use the 3D for the two player fulllscreen feature when playing games in split screen (Mario Kart 8). This is actually really cool, since it allows both players to only see their own part of the screen and also see their part in fullscreen.
No, but somehow I hoped the following would happen that could have made the tech useful: instead of having a pair of glasses each one with left+right filters, have two pair of glasses, one with "left" filters on both eyes and one with "right" filters on both eyes, with "left" frames coming from one input and "right" frames from another one, so that the TV can be used by two persons simultaneously (obviously without 3D). Basically that's interleaving two input sources and demuxing each one to each corresponding viewer with the glasses. For audio headsets would be fine.
Of course watching a romantic movie next to someone frantically playing a BF1 match probably wouldn't fly.
I've tested it with some games, especially Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Uncharted 3.
Whereas for most games, it didn't add anything and sometimes it was even annoying (for example in AC, the placement of the HUD was way too close), for Uncharted 3 it really added some depths (pun intended).
I bought a Toshiba passive 3D TV. Never really used it much in 3D mode. I played a few PS3 games in 3D which was fun but ultimatley I preferred watching in 2D once I got bored of the 3D gimmick. I had a few 3D blue-ray disks but just did not impress me that much
I only buy 3D blu-rays. If its not 3D, I don't buy it. No point: I just rent it on Amazon Instant Video or iTunes. I have a Sony 4K/3D(passive) and its amazing, and a Visio 3D TV which is still good. We have maybe 15 (free) glasses so any number can watch. I will miss 3D, and 3D will be the #1 deciding factor when I buy my next TV.
Not sure who this market was intended for. It lacked the convenience of a regular TV set and also the "wow" factor of VR. I've started watching youtube and Netflix on my Vive and the difference between that huge virtual screen and what a 3D TV can do is enormous, even if the videos themselves are just plain 2D videos projected onto a virtual space.
The more I think of it, the more a lot of last gen technologies were stop-gap measures until we had VR. The Kinect, and to a lesser extent the Wii, are also in this category. You lost all the convenience of a controller to kinda, sorta have a virtual experience where you avatar is closely tied to your body but projected onto the screen. Now you're really "in the game" or "on the set" when you consider what's possible with VR and movies/tv/machinima.
I also hope this is the end of 3D in the movie theaters. It not only looks completely wrong via the false exaggerated 3D effects typically in use, but most implementations kill the lighting levels and color fidelity. The cost for me and my wife to see a movie with parking, babysitter, and basic concessions is nearly $100. Selling me a sub-par experience with a grainy and dark screen is not how you beat Netflix, Amazon, and Google.
“I live my life in 3D, I go to movies for the 2D. If I want to see something hurdling towards [me], I’ll just stay at home with my son.” - Paula Poundstone [1]
I loved 3D TVs because I got into it at the end. The story of home 3D in general is a little sad, the first attempts on both computers and TVs were mediocre but somewhat expensive (really expensive on PC), which burned people. Towards the end attempts improved, but it was too little too late and 4k was the new "must have" feature.
I wish they would use this technology to show two different content at the same time. Example, the kids could play their game on mute while the parents watch another show.
Stereoscopic 3D that requires glasses or separate displays is not interesting. True 3D, e.g., by using phased arrays in the optical spectrum without glasses or separate displays, that will be interesting.
I believe the same fate awaits VR headsets. AR (augmented reality) has the potential to be be the game changer, especially AR contacts, whenever they become available!
"Purchase process research showed it's not a top buying consideration, and anecdotal information indicated that actual usage was not high."
Anyone else surprised they're making this decision partly based on 'anecdotal information'? Or would it be explicitly phrased this way to prevent people from suspecting spyware in their TV sets?
Kill "smart" TVs, too, please! It's mostly unnecessary (set top boxes exist), confusing (for many), and they don't get updated nearly long enough as the TV's 10 year life span. So you may get yourself some ransomware through it.
This is sad. Film makers are shooting movies in 3D. If you don't want to see films in that format, that is fine. But it will be too bad if there is no way to see a 3D movie on a TV.
VR will not be a substitute because it is a different medium.
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced.
In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended, which often involves focusing on the foreground or the background... once in a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare.
The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all objects in the shot appear in focus.
In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that good 2D shots can often attain.
3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.
In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze.
So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
3D film is unreal in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial cue.
[+] [-] jt2190|9 years ago|reply
Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D.
Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.
[+] [-] EdHominem|9 years ago|reply
When you increase the width of the aperture of a lens (your pupil) you decrease the depth of field in sharp focus. It's a fundamental limit of optics.
On a bright day you have a lot of light and your pupil is narrowest, bringing as much as possible into focus.
> So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.
I watched the Hobbit in 3d and thought it was awful. You had this tiny sweet spot right where the director intended you to look and everything else was a sea of blur.
I realized that I like looking at sets because I was frustrated every time I tried.
[+] [-] gambiting|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuaxo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cozumel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scoot|9 years ago|reply
Apparently you've misunderstood either 3D (or more accurately stereoscopic) vision, depth of field, or both. Cue detailed HN-worthy explanation of each... but frankly, you'd be better off perusing the myriad of resources available on these two subjects.
[+] [-] akmarinov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stronglikedan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a_c|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kurthr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DannyB2|9 years ago|reply
3D is and has always been a gimmic.
It doesn't improve the story telling. It doesn't contribute to the plot in any way.
But then, some movie makers remark, 'story' ? 'plot ? what strange words you use.
[+] [-] nateguchi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbarn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WouterSpaak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mulletbum|9 years ago|reply
It pains me that they aren't just focused on higher and high quality of projection instead of 3d.
[+] [-] BlackjackCF|9 years ago|reply
3D at home... on a smaller screen... just doesn't work as well as a spectacle.
[+] [-] protomyth|9 years ago|reply
They had a preview for The Walk and that preview showed the true depth of 3D.
[+] [-] DKnoll|9 years ago|reply
I imagine smaller chains opening new locations may pass on adding 3D capability to their theatres in future, however many may continue showing 3D films on the equipped screens if only to justify the extra $15k/cinema in equipment they were hustled into buying while making their mandatory 3D conversion.
[+] [-] bbayer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcosdev|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kej|9 years ago|reply
It was plain old 2D except for a handful of scenes where they flashed an icon in the corner to tell you to put on your glasses. You put them on for a minute, saw some cool 3D effect in an action scene, and then you took them off before you got a headache and before it affected the rest of the movie.
[+] [-] ClassyJacket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l1ambda|9 years ago|reply
I have seen a lot of 3D movies on LG OLED sets (Gravity, Mad Max), and it's remarkable. Much better than 4K UHD. With the latest LG OLEDs, you get 1080p per eye, bright smooth motion, and the passive glasses are cheap, lightweight, and you don't have to charge them.
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
VR is hard for most directors to handle. Steven Cameron (Avatar, Titanic) likes pans over detailed backgrounds. His 3D is done with a light touch - nothing ever appears in front of the screen plane. That looks good, which is why "Avatar" launched the 3D boom. Cameron wants higher frame rates so those long pans don't have strobing.
Too many other directors use 3D to pretend they're doing a roller coaster simulator. They put stuff in your face to make people feel they go their money's worth viewing the 3D version. That's just painful.
Next to go down: VR headsets. The technology has been working for years now and there's still no killer app beyond 3D shooters.
[+] [-] zenkat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeax|9 years ago|reply
Nowadays 3D movies are harder to find. Force Awakens came out on 3D six months later and only after a fan revolt. Let me tell you the 3D was better on my TV than in the theater.
The only saving grace at this point: VR. Samsung is making VR cool and hopefully Apple comes out with their own VR set. VR will bridge the gap until they build a no-glasses 3D TV.
[+] [-] nr152522|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smeyer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Agentlien|9 years ago|reply
I also tried to take the 2D version of some movies originally made in 3D and use the TVs own 2D to 3D conversion feature. While it obviously causes some artifacts and sometimes adds depth where it doesn't make sense (mainly TV screens inside the movie) I found that it worked surprisingly well.
Primarily, though, my wife and I use the 3D for the two player fulllscreen feature when playing games in split screen (Mario Kart 8). This is actually really cool, since it allows both players to only see their own part of the screen and also see their part in fullscreen.
[+] [-] lloeki|9 years ago|reply
Of course watching a romantic movie next to someone frantically playing a BF1 match probably wouldn't fly.
[+] [-] bhaak|9 years ago|reply
Whereas for most games, it didn't add anything and sometimes it was even annoying (for example in AC, the placement of the HUD was way too close), for Uncharted 3 it really added some depths (pun intended).
[+] [-] astannard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lowbloodsugar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|9 years ago|reply
The more I think of it, the more a lot of last gen technologies were stop-gap measures until we had VR. The Kinect, and to a lesser extent the Wii, are also in this category. You lost all the convenience of a controller to kinda, sorta have a virtual experience where you avatar is closely tied to your body but projected onto the screen. Now you're really "in the game" or "on the set" when you consider what's possible with VR and movies/tv/machinima.
I also hope this is the end of 3D in the movie theaters. It not only looks completely wrong via the false exaggerated 3D effects typically in use, but most implementations kill the lighting levels and color fidelity. The cost for me and my wife to see a movie with parking, babysitter, and basic concessions is nearly $100. Selling me a sub-par experience with a grainy and dark screen is not how you beat Netflix, Amazon, and Google.
[+] [-] joeblau|9 years ago|reply
I just wanna 4k dumb TV.
[+] [-] ipunchghosts|9 years ago|reply
I'll show myself out.
[+] [-] stevewilhelm|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://variety411.com/article/a-night-of-high-spirits-for-ar...
[+] [-] BoorishBears|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novafaen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yabatopia|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heywire|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] king07828|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taylodl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sssparkkk|9 years ago|reply
Anyone else surprised they're making this decision partly based on 'anecdotal information'? Or would it be explicitly phrased this way to prevent people from suspecting spyware in their TV sets?
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgeecollins|9 years ago|reply
VR will not be a substitute because it is a different medium.