I wonder if 3D will be as common as colour is today. If you look around, almost all displays (including some that don’t need to be, like cheap mobile phones) are in colour.
I just think 3D uses too much resources, has no good methods and doesn’t add much to the experience, but I bet that’s what people said of colour in the past too.
No it won’t.
I think it will become a lot more common, but perhaps not as ubiquitous as color. A sort of, in between, I suppose.
I confess, I’m voting my desires, not my omniscient prophecy… I don’t want 3-D to be the new standard. I’m a bit afraid that it will be.
(Although full 3-D – where I could watch the movie from any angle – like watching a war movie from overhead, to get a map-view, or watching a musical from behind, to see all the dancers’ derrieres – would be kind of fun. When they get around to fully-rendered 3-D movies, and we get to download the entire dataset, then I might be a bit more interested.)
Nope.
Too many people dislike it, it will lose ground and may even fail completely, though more likely it will stay as an optional effect for certain kinds of movies.
Speaking from a manufacturing stand poit: Yes, of course it will.
Once the technology becomes cheap enough, it will become more cost effective for TV manufactures to make just one standard TV. (That is to say; the less variations of a product a manufacturer has to make, the cheaper it is for them.)
Remember, 3D is just an option on your TV. You don’t have to use it any more than you have to use the ‘closed caption’ option on your TV.
I would only be interested in a 3-D TV once they perfect a process that doesn’t require you to wear glasses. And of course once it becomes affordable to the typical consumer.
Me too. It’s an interesting novelty, but for me (and more than half of my IRL friends), it’s actually an uncomfortable experience trying to watch a whole movie in 3D, so I hope it will fizzle out or remain niche, but fear it will become standard.
I guess that would only really work if the production was created with that usage in mind - I’m fairly sure that it might be rendered either comical or unwatchable by shortcuts in the design (When all that is seen of a character is his/her head peering over a wall, do they bother to model, or if modelled, realistically animate, the rest of the character’s body? - and in cases where a location is only used once, do they bother designing the parts that will never be in front of the camera?)
If a reliable and cost-effective method of creating 3D images is developed that doesn’t rely on glasses and can be seen from any reasonable angle (that is to say, you can sit to the side of the TV and still have it work, I don’t mean manipulate the camera’s viewpoint of the scene) can be developed, then yes. If not, I don’t think it will be quite that common.
The other concern is that some people seem to react poorly to some 3D technologies now, causing headaches and/or simply not working for them, so if the number of people who have such difficulties viewing 3D is significant, that’ll be another problem with it becoming used everywhere.
Are video games and porn big enough to be considered more than a niche? Maybe some sports as well where the participants are close to the camera (boxing, MMA). That’s where 3D can significantly add to the experience.
I don’t think so. When I look at other products pitching 3D, I think of the whole thing as a gimmick.
3D toothpastes? Really?
How about 3D soap?
Sure, they’re unrelated to movies, but that’s my point. My gut says when unrelated products try to ride the coattails of the original, it becomes a gimmick.
Unless and until we get true holographic projection (a la Star Wars), then the current 3D movie craze will fade, until someone like Cameron comes up with another version of the equipment.
I sure hope not. I like to read or be online when I watch TV, and trying to look at the TV, then at the book or the computer will be a real pain.
I voted “niche,” although I’m about as enthusiastic about 3D as they come.
But the poll is a bit slanted - 3D will never have the ubiquity of colour, because (for many types of films) there isn’t much in the way of a return to justify the production expense and requirement of wearing glasses. Documentaries? Romantic comedies? I don’t care if they’re in 3D.
…but for any movie that contains an element of spectacle, I think people will come to feel something’s missing if it’s not in 3D. Animation, blockbuster sci-fi and fantasy - these sorts of films are natural - but even stuff like The Great Gatsby or Pina - if you don’t shoot stereo, it’s going to hurt.
That’s a big “niche.”
Martin Scorsese said all his movies from now on will be 3D
I am also a big fan of 3D. However I didn’t vote because my choice would be in the middle, 3D isn’t going to be as universal as color but it’s going to be bigger than what is usually conveyed by the word “niche”.
In addition to its current stronghold of big-budget films I think 3D will get bigger in areas like sports, concerts, nature documentaries etc. It will be common for people to take shoot 3-D photos and films. Glasses-free 3D will be common on displays of all sorts including smartphones and tablets.
If Project Glass goes well, I’d expect (current) 3D technology to fall out of favor well before it can become ubiquitous.
I don’t understand this comment - Google’s Project Glass’s display technology is monographic and super low-res.
They aren’t trying to develop it into anything that might conceivably compete with 3D cinema, and even if they were considering developing a 3D heads-up display for it, it could never come close to the kind of image you get from a nice big screen some distance away from your nose.
There are other companies working on heads up displays that might conceivably be used to deliver stereo content, but 640X480 is currently considered a very high resolution for this type of display, and you’re looking at some serious physical limitations when you’re talking about lightweight displays placed that close to your eyes.
Are you talking about some other Project Glass?
Not unless color starts making people dizzy too.
I’m saying that if the first generation of Project Glass does well, they’ll want to refine the technology into a decent HUD TV. The people who currently care about 3D TV will lose interest in it once HUD TVs become a thing, and 3D TV will never be ubiquitous.