3D: What future in tech?

[decafjava]

Ok macrumours people what do you think of 3D tech as currently implemented in movies, 3D TVs and gaming as like the Nintentdo 3DS? Do you like it or not and why? Is it a gimmick or does it have potential? BBC film critic Mark Kermode (a fave of mine) is not really a fan of 3D in cinema and I mostly agree with him. I did enjoy a few 3D titles but don't see it there yet. It would be the same for TV not really impressive outside of certain genres. Gaming has potential, though currently I have mixed impressions of the 3DS (tried it in the stores several times) good idea, implementation needs tweaking, find it annoying how small tolerance the angle for viewing the 3D properly is for me. Still the tech will mature.

Now how about for other mobile devices? iPad 5 with 3D medical encyclopedias perhaps? 3D navigation apps for iPhone etc? I can see a problem here in how would you go about manipulating a three dimensional object with a two dimensional screen?

 

[roadbloc]

Not for me thanks. 3D cinema gives me a headache and the 3DS makes my eyes go all screwy. I think it's a great gimmick for people who can cope with it, but I don't think we need 3D to check Facebook or type a word document.

 

[MacNut]

This is something that we have discussed repeatedly and the consensus is that it sucks.

 

[0098386]

Everyone seems to dislike it, but I love it. I just wish I had more games on my 3DS (soon to change with Mario and Mario Kart though ) and I watch all my films in 3D if the option is there.

Best cinema experience I had was Tron Legacy in 3D at the IMAX. Walked out of that a changed person.

I believe it works best with games. GT, Arkham City and Just Cause 2 are wonderful in 3D.

 

[Thetonyk123]

Not for me thanks. 3D cinema gives me a headache and the 3DS makes my eyes go all screwy. I think it's a great gimmick for people who can cope with it, but I don't think we need 3D to check Facebook or type a word document.

I agree, 3D to me, is just a big gimmick

 

[boss.king]

I absolutely hate 3D. I was crushed when I saw that The Hobbit is being made in 3D, and probably won't see it until it releases on DVD now. It's just such a terrible experience and never adds anything of value to the movie.

 

[decafjava]

The Hobbitt in 3D?? Did not know that. Still most of the big 3D movies I've seen have also been available in non-3D versions sometimes in the same cineplex as the 3D one. I'm looking very much forward to it.

Now I agree with roadbloc you don't need 3D for facebook or writing a word document. I do think however it has real future potential in science and engineering. Another good example for public use would be something like Google Earth in 3D. Very cool.

 

[Mr. McMac]

I can't watch 3D for more than a few minutes, it screws my eyes up. Besides, I wear glasses which makes the whole experience uncomfortable. Unless technology progresses to the point where no special glasses are required, I feel 3D will die a slow death

 

[roadbloc]

Unless technology progresses to the point where no special glasses are required, I feel 3D will die a slow death

It has reached that point. Have you never used a 3DS. My brother loves his, 3D with no glasses required. I'm not so keen, as it obvious strains my eyes. For them who can cope with it, 3D will have a place in technology in the terms of media consumption.

 

[Thetonyk123]

It has reached that point. Have you never used a 3DS. My brother loves his, 3D with no glasses required. I'm not so keen, as it obvious strains my eyes. For them who can cope with it, 3D will have a place in technology in the terms of media consumption.

I went to best buy and the 3D makes your eyes all funky and I only played it for 5 minutes! Also the 3D "hotspot" is tiny.

I would never pay a lot for a 3D tv. My 42inch HD is fine

 

[boss.king]

The Hobbitt in 3D?? Did not know that. Still most of the big 3D movies I've seen have also been available in non-3D versions sometimes in the same cineplex as the 3D one. I'm looking very much forward to it.

Now I agree with roadbloc you don't need 3D for facebook or writing a word document. I do think however it has real future potential in science and engineering. Another good example for public use would be something like Google Earth in 3D. Very cool.

They're doing it in 5K resolution at 48 FPS too, I saw a thing on the news about it. They saw it looks really cool, but unless 3D viewing technology improves a hell of a lot before it releases, I won't watch it.

 

[B777Forevar]

3D is a silly gimmick.

 

[MacNut]

They're doing it in 5K resolution at 48 FPS too, I saw a thing on the news about it. They saw it looks really cool, but unless 3D viewing technology improves a hell of a lot before it releases, I won't watch it.

Why would you need 3D when 5k would have so much more depth of field naturally.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Why would you need 3D when 5k would have so much more depth of field naturally.

The point of 3D isn't to increase the amount of detail on a 2D plane, it's to mimic parallax so you don't feel like you're looking at a 2D plane.

The thing about 3D is that there's an art to it that hasn't been fleshed out yet. People are still arguing about technical standards such as how far apart the dual cameras should be spaced or whether they should be angled inward. Then there's also the issue that in order for 3D to work, your eyes need to be "told" where to focus on. If my brain expects the action to be happening beyond the 2D plane but the 3D was created in a way the the action is happening in front of it, I'm gonna be distracted or get a headache.

When done right, 3D just mimics what your eyes naturally do except you're no longer confined to a 2D plane. When done wrong, it's distracting. Done right it's a feature. Done wrong it's a crappy gimmick. The problem is most of these movies are having the 3D tacked on post-processing. They weren't filmed with 3D in mind so now the experience sucks. Big difference between these and Avatar or even Harold and Kumar 3D, where they knew where they wanted everything to be relative to the 2D plane before they started filming.

I own a 3DS and a Fujifilm W3 camera. The technology is new, anything with glasses sucks, and most lenticular screens have too narrow a field of view. But the tech and art behind it will eventually mature to the point where it becomes a reliable experience.

 

[decafjava]

The technology is new, anything with glasses sucks, and most lenticular screens have too narrow a field of view. But the tech and art behind it will eventually mature to the point where it becomes a reliable experience.

Very pertinent...just like most other technologies.

 

[APlotdevice]

The point of 3D isn't to increase the amount of detail on a 2D plane, it's to mimic parallax so you don't feel like you're looking at a 2D plane.

one problem is that accommodation... eye focus... is still telling your brain that you're looking at a 2D plane. For some people this conflict of information by itself causes headaches. And for a small percentage of the population it can even cancel out the effect entirely.

Now that said there is at least one possible future solution: A display technology being developed which would show slightly different images depending on what angle you view it from, as if you were looking through a window. In theory with enough angles this technology could mimic both parallax and accomidation.