Never. We’ve had the technology to do various kinds of 3-d films for decades and decades. People don’t like them. It adds nothing to the experience. It’s a fun novelty, but it’s not going to happen to TV any time soon. If it does, it’ll take decades more. But I’m betting it won’t happen to TV at all in the foreseeable future. There may be a tiny niche market, but there won’t be any programming for it, so it’s not going to end up being a useful technology.
Same article.
Yeah. Just like that little “tele-phone” parlour trick a few years back.
I don’t have stereoscopic vision; there’s no 3-D system I know of that works for me except for actual holograms. And even if true holographic tv were available, I don’t think it would be more than a gimmick.
But theatrical-quality screen resolution – that would be worth paying for.
:rolleyes: Right, except for the fact that 3-d pictures have been around in some form or another for decades, and consumers have never shown any interest in them. This is something that people have proven over and over that they don’t like or find useful, unlike the telephone, whose utility was obvious and which caught on instantly rather than languishing for several decades.
Other than that, the situations are identical! I’m sure this time around, people are going to clamor for them, even though they never have done so in the past!
I’m with Baldwin on this. 3D doesn’t work for me, but HD is cool, baby. I just needs me some $$.
If it’s first incarnation were to be arcade video games, i think it will be outstanding!
Holodecks - here we come!
There have been 3D arcade games before this. Remember SubRoc 3D from circa 1982? It used separate viewers for left and right eyes. Didn’t catch on.
I’d love to see 3D catch on for both TV and video. I think it has real potential well beyond the “novelty” stage, but it’s a hard sell. There have been patents for lenticular 3D TV screenms for decades now, and they still haven’t caught on.
Heck, there have been forays into 3-D porn stills, and even that didn’t catch on.
throws ball at Baldwin
BONK!
runs away
Never mind all that, when are we getting smellovision?
Still porn isn’t where it’s at bay-bee. Think 3D TV porn.
When I saw this thread I immediately thought of porn. (Heh.) I don’t see how true 3D TV could be anything but a boon to porn, and vice versa. Suppose you’re watching an image of a hot naked dancer, and she bends over and waggles her butt, but she’s facing toward you so all you see is waggling hair. With 2D, you’re just out of luck. With true 3D you adjust the remote so the dancer does a 180 in front of you (or a 90 or whatever), hit the rewind, and there you are … just what you wanted to see.
Also, imagine a life-size image of a kneeling woman doing some oral sex. But she has no partner, she’s just fellating empty air. Of what possible use would such an image be?
I don’t see how a reasonably priced product like that could fail. It would HAVE to be reasonably priced, because at some point it becomes cheaper to go to a strip club, hire a prostitute or go on a date – or otherwise have one of those “reality” experiences that simulate virtual experiences so well at times.
But if the price is right the market will be there. Big time.
Ditto. I went HD 4 mos ago, and am 100% delighted. The difference is stunning. And I wear glasses.
Obviously, **Bosda’s ** mileage varies, considerably.
Ditto. I’m thinking that the more time goes on the cheaper the HDTV sets will get.
I remember when the first electric calculators had tubes, needed to be plugged into the wall, were heavy and cost $1,500. These days you can get a hand-held calculator by subscribing to Sports Illustrated!
That’s why when my old analogue TV pooped out I bought a used TV from the repairman for $60. I just want it to last until February, 2009. When channels 2 through 13 disappear forever then I’ll look at what the sets are selling for.
Wouldn’t work, at least not without some radically new technology (as in, we don’t even know yet what the physics of such a technology might be, never mind the engineering). You can put the image anywhere you want, with its location being defined by where the light rays would intersect. But if you have something between your eyes and the screen (which would be rather essential for the use you’re thinking of), that object is still going to obstruct your view. The result is a very disorienting view of a “background” object obstructing a “foreground” object, which is not something our brains are wired to handle. At a rough approximation, if you tried to make a 3-d image of a woman fellate you, what you would see would be a penis-shaped cleft through her head, with the halves of her head protruding up above your penis. Except it’d be even freakier than that, because each of your eyes would see a different cleft, each lining up exactly with your penis, giving the cleft itself a sort of bizarre three-dimensionality.
About the only way you could get the effect you’re thinking of would be to put an actual, physical mannequin there (a technology we already have, as I’m sure you know well), or to put the screens right at your eyes, so nothing could get in the way, which would mean wearing a bulky, uncomfortable headset (a technology we also already have, but which has caught on even less than Realdolls).
GargoyleWB:
Yeah, you BETTER run! (Okay, it was funny.) Actually, I do fine if I’m in motion; it lets me see objects moving against the background. Fighting in the SCA, I try to keep moving.
I’ve seen a couple of IMAX movies, and was really impressed by the format. But one of them was 3-D, which was simply annoying. When you’ve got a huge, amazingly detailed picture, that’s really all you need to draw the viewer in.
I’m with you on this one; I don’t have particularly great stereo vision (lazy left eye with a slight squint), but every example of 3D footage I’ve yet seen was gimmicky ‘ooh, let’s poke the audience in the eye’ stuff. Maybe this would calm down if the technology became commonplace, but I’m not sure it will get to there, because rolling it out in the meantime means finding a mass audience that doesn’t mind being poked in the eye in the name of entertainment.
Not sure I can even get excited about this; DVD is good enough for me; if I want to experience something on a great big high-def screen with surround sound, I’ll go to a cinema.
If you’re talking 3-D from a wall screen, there’s one issue that hasn’t been addressed. For 2-D it always appears that you’re looking through a window upon the action that’s going on outside. When something goes out of frame, it’s seemingly blocked by the walls to either side, this is natural.
With 3-D, the action comes through the window into your living room. You still have the same frame problem, though, nothing can move past the sides of the screen, even though there’s nothing “blocking” it. An object can come in, camera pans right, and the object vanishes, that’s pretty unnatural.
I would compare it more to the videophone, which appeared sometime in the 70s and was much-hyped as the next wave of communication technology. For a long time, bandwidth restrictions kept the realization of full-motion video out of reach, but now that technology has caught up with concept…still no videophones. The reason? People don’t like them; it’s as simple as that. The same reasons Excalibre correctly outlines for the failure of 3-D tech to catch on.
Are you sure that the reason there are no videophones isn’t because there is computer equipment that can do the same thing?