Actually, I was thinking of 3D screens and whether we’d see them everywhere, including mobile phones, vending machines and all sorts of places where they aren’t needed. But films is an interesting category as well.
It may become as popular as color, but it’s going to always be optional. Then again, with the saturation/color settings on most TVs, I guess color was technically always optional, too.
I don’t really see 3D going anywhere this time around, for the simple reason that adding 3D for the first time does not substantially hurt the 2D experience. I just predict there will not be any non-gimmick movies that depend on 3D.
Use of 3D for extended periods makes me sick, too, but as long as I can still watch in 2D, I don’t mind. The only downside is that certain 2D techniques don’t work in 3D.
EDIT: on seeing the OP’s last post: not for a long while. The screen technology just isn’t there.
Though perhaps in TVs it will be worth it to include 3D options, I don’t see it being useful in displays that are mass produced for a specific function. At least, not to the ubiquity of color displays.
You’re fooling yourselves if you don’t think stereoscopy will become the norm in the next decade or two. 3D films and television will become more ubiquitous, just like HD, until the entire manufacturing process is streamlined from recording to viewing across all media.
I love stereoscopy, personally. It’s the glasses that annoy me. When the technology becomes increasingly better, standardized, with no need for glasses, then it’ll be everywhere, and younger generations will just accept it as the status quo.
2D might remain as an artistic choice, like vinyl records, but might be looked upon as the “mono” to the audiophile’s “stereo.”
I said two years ago I’d 3D five years at most. It’s right on schedule to fulfill my prediction.
3D adds nothing, other than being a cool gimmick. If it can be made to work without glasses, it’s got a better shot, but it still won’t become the standard.
I can’t predict the future. But I do know that I am not particularly unique. And I am not going to start forking over more money for 3D movies in the theater until they improve it considerably. Right now it doesn’t look that impressive to me-just one background moving against another. Plus, it kinda gives me a headache, as happens to many people. But if they starting getting closer to something that actually looks real–like a fully formed, convincingly lifelike, holographic image–then I might be interested. But I suppose something that high-tech wouldn’t be called merely ‘3D movies’ anymore. It’d be called ‘like being inside the fucking Holodeck from Star Trek: TNG, dude!’
I forgot to add this in my previous post. I recently bought a TV, all I wanted was a 55", 1080p @ 240 hz. I had no intrest in 3D.
I wound up getting 3d anyway. You know why? Because 3D is pretty much standard with the above qualifiers.
So, in the year you predicted this, there were 23 3D films released, and we have 41 3D films scheduled for release, with a vast majority of them being proper filmed-in-3D released, including prestige/literary titles like Life of Pi and The Great Gatsby.
Since you’ve made that prediction, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Werner Herzog, Baz Luhmann, Wim Wenders, Ang Lee, David Lynch, and Jean-Luc Godard have embraced 3D. What part of your “schedule” is moving along? The calendar is advancing?
*in 2012
I sincerely hope not. Dunno if it’s my childhood esotropia or what, but I almost never see 3D stuff on the screen. They do nothing for me.
Odd that stereoscopy gives some people headaches, since assuming you have depth perception, you’re already experiencing reality in “3D.”
Maybe it’s akin to motion sickness or something?
It’s fake depth perception, you can’t shift your eye focus in the same way as the real world. Plus they reduce motion blur to get it to work, which causes a stutter, which is disconcerting.
I sure hope not. It doesn’t add one iota to the viewing experience for me. I go out of my way to see movies released in 3D in their 2D format.
Yes, high end TVs all have 3D now. But you can still use them in 2D.
That’s another thing Guanolad said about 3D - it simulates angles between eyes, but not focusing.
3D TVs that require glasses. I don’t see something that requires glasses to be ubiquitous in other contexts. I also don’t see how 3D that requires you to be standing at a certain angle will work in that context, either.
Especially since, unless I’m mistaken, most “3D TVs” only provide 3D with shutter glasses. For that to work, any display would have to put out some signal for the electronic glasses you’d have to wear everywhere to shutter at the right moments. At least passive polarization like they use in theaters would, once standardized, work for anyone willing to wear polarized glasses.
Not that I think most people would want to do that, either.
It’s impossible to have a non-glasses 3D screen for more than a person sitting t the right spot, as I understand. I don’t see people looking for their 3D glasses every time they want to watch a movie and putting up with all the hassle.
However, I do think that Max may be right about the project glass thing. If you are wearing computer-like glasses anyway and they become popular enough (Hey, cell phones were science fiction not too long ago) 3D would become the norm.
But in flat screens? Nah, that’s doomed to extinction.
The LG 3D TVs use polarization, “passive” 3D, as you ask. The polarization is compatible with Real3D theater glasses, so I’ve now got like 40 pairs of glasses that work with my TV (attn: friends who go to theaters- stop giving me your glasses, including a few in Marvel shapes (from the recent Marvel Movie Marathon celebrating the Avengers premiere). From what I understand, the passive 3D from Vizio is also LG/Real3D compatible. So, there’s not only the passive system you ask for, but there seems to be convergence around a common standard.
Short answer to the OP: I’m a huge 3D fan, bought my TV and most of my BR collection with 3D in mind, but I don’t expect 3D to be as common as color. I expect it to be a connoisseur format, with a limited subset of current releases being released in the specialist format.
3D will be as popular as Laserdisc, but for a very different crowd.
What’s the 3D technology called that’s used in the 3DS? My son has one and the 3D is pretty cool looking. Could that be adapted to a larger screen format?
I love 3D, and this is coming from someone that absolutely hated the old style 3D of yore with the blue and red lensed glasses. That shit sucked, yo.
I think it’s lenticular/autostereoscopic Autostereoscopy - Wikipedia
There are some prototype TVs that use this, giving glasses-free 3D and a few “sweet spots”.
As is the case for all 3D TVs. I believe 3D will become standard and it will alwys be an optional function.