3D: Here to stay or passing fad?

[Leigason]

These days contemplating making a movie without 3D seems almost like contemplating a movie without sound. 3D is everywhere, and if your movie is a summer blockbuster, a solid slice of scifi, high fantasy hokum or a scream-inducing schlock-horror then chances are you'll be watching it behind a pair of goofy dark 3D goggles.

But is 3D really here to stay? There are those who would argue that the question is already a moot point, particularly since the film industry has recently come out firmly in its favor. And if you think about it, 3D, or stereoscopic viewing technology of one form or another, has roots almost as old as the motion picture itself. By the end of the Nineteenth century, the Stereopticon was a common entertainment device in the homes of the middle and upper classes. They may not have been watching Avatar, but they were viewing 3D images.

Ultimately economics will probably be the deciding factor on whether 3D is here to stay and on what platform. Movie theatres? TV? Video games?

While film makers are likely to recoup their investments on big screen productions the TV market is another matter. Industry officials are hopeful. British Sky Broadcasting (responsible for the SKY channel) plans to launch the first ever 3D channel sometime in the next year, following on from the success of their dedicated HD channel. The World Cup in South Africa will also be recorded in 3D. Most major television manufacturers are working on 3D-ready models, with Sony predicting half of all TV sales to be 3D-ready models by 2012.

However to make this model work under current conditions, consumers must be willing to put up with poor quality images with motion blur and artefacts. Higher quality 3D requires enormous bandwidth and bandwidth issues have a knock on effect on distribution formats, cabling and TV screens. Would you be willing to reinvest in your entire entertainment system for the sake of 3D?

Industry focus groups are now feverishly asking the question 'Are people willing to watch TV wearing 3D glasses?' It's a good one. Will we need a pair for each person watching TV? Will we need to shell out a lot of cash? Even recent advances in 'no-glasses 3D' (Apple recently filed a patent for auto-stereoscopic viewing technology) leave something to be desired, as the technology works by tracking the position of the viewer then automatically adjusting the display in order to maintain the 3D effect. Fine, if you are a single viewer. Not so fine if you invite a group of people around to watch the match, or sit down to enjoy a family movie. And what happens if you get up to use the bathroom at the ad break?

As it stands, 3D TV is not that attractive a proposition for the average viewer.

One area that's ripe for 3D is the video games market. Gamers love gaming paraphernalia from headsets to keyboard overlays to steering wheels to entire surround sound systems built into the chair and may just be willing to don glasses for the 3D experience. Sony has just made the move to 3D gaming on the Playstation 3 with the following series of games - Super Stardust HD, WipEout HD, MotorStorm Pacific Rift, and Pain. Other titles are said to follow shortly. Of course, a 3D TV and glasses are necessary for the full 3D gaming experience, which brings me back to an earlier point.

I think that when games producers begin to factor 3D into their design (the ability to peer over that ubiquitous packing crate for example, or take a peep around a corner) instead of just factoring 3D into already released titles, the landscape of gaming will be altered forever.

3D has been the entertainment buzz word of the last year, but until we can achieve the right quality at the right price in our own homes, it may simply remain a box-office success story.

[starlady]

Since I have to wear glasses for distance I'm not thrilled about having to wear the 3D ones over my regular ones. I certainly don't want to have to wear 2 sets of glasses at home all the time . If they were able to make it so the glasses were not necessary I might be interested. For right now, they can keep them in the theaters.

I found this icky article about 3D glasses on cinematical.com

Warning Spoiler

Are Theaters Keeping 3D Glasses Clean? New Study Says No

Okay you 3D fiends out there. You love all those crappy after-the-fact transfers, wearing glasses to watch TV and movies, and the thought of all entertainment entering the third dimension, as if 2D-to-3D is as logical a progression as VHS to DVD? Then deal with your cooties!

No, I'm not just being juvenile. I'm just referencing the fact that the sanitary issues we joke about when it comes to reusable 3D glasses are actually true. You've made a wisecrack about it, right? Someone from theater personnel hands you some glasses, and you hope that they're sanitized properly because it's not as simple as sitting in the same seat as a germy person, but rather slipping germ-infested glasses onto your face -- resting against your eyes and some of your body's most important property.

A new study found your worst fears to be true: There's a good chance those glasses aren't sterile, and you'll definitely want to know what folks are finding once the glasses are put under a microscope ...

ABC reports that their Good Housekeeping tested 3D glasses at seven theaters in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. They found not one pair to be sterile. They report: "3D glasses given out at cinemas were found to be contaminated with bacteria that can cause conjunctivitis, skin infections, food poisoning, or even sepsis or pneumonia, but docs say that the germs found are no more threatening than what you find on the arm rest, box of popcorn, or movie seats."

Yes, one can't just run screaming from bacteria, because it's everywhere. If we could all see the cells that rest on the things we touch, the microscopic bugs that work their way through our eyelashes, the world might stop spinning. But let's just humor the findings for one minute. The fact that they're no more threatening doesn't mean they are not threatening. They're just giving it the same level of germy fun.

We know the dangers of germs and act according to our own comfort level. But when you're handed a pair of glasses to put on your face, that's a bit different. They come with the expectation that they're sanitized. No one considers there to be any risk involved, that there are germs from the last person who wore them swimming around your own eyesockets. But it's not surprising. Can we expect pristine glasses from folks who don't clean the sticky floor or sometimes don't clean the theater between screenings?

Chances are, there will be no physical effect to the viewer wearing dirty glasses beyond the usual ick factor. However, now you might want to consider buying your own pair of glasses, self-sanitizing the heck out of the specs before the movie begins, and then sitting down and asking yourself: Is 3D worth it?

Good thing I didn't turn mine in.

[MajorIce]

I saw Avatar in 3-D. Some parts of it were spetacular like the forest at night. And then there was 98% of the movie that wasn't. I never jumped out of my seat or ducked. I heard the IMAX 3-D of Avatar was impressive. Until it gives you the full amusement park treatment at the theater they need not bother having it on TV!

[starlady]

Porn in 3D? What is going on people? The end of the world is near I tell ya.

here

[Leigason]

Did you mean to show us a link to Jason Momoa?

[starlady]

Did you mean to show us a link to Jason Momoa?

Just checking to see if anyone was paying attention. It's fixed now. Now I need to see if I posted the Jason one correctly.

[Leigason]

It's funny, I heard someone say the other day that the reason Betamax failed was because porn studios choose VHS as their standard.

Is this a shot in the arm for 3D?

[tjinloca]

Hell, I just want to watch Avatar porn! I don't care if it's 3D or not.

[starlady]

Hell, I just want to watch Avatar porn! I don't care if it's 3D or not.

You're so easy to please TJ.