Please wait...
But it's for this reason that 3-D didn't take over "all movies" ... and it's also one of the reasons why VR goggles, even if there's a nice little market for them, aren't going to become as ubiquitous as smartphones.
Was cleaning yesterday ran across my 3D headset ( that works with a phone for the display )
Had so much promise. but no. fizzled out.
But it's for this reason that 3-D didn't take over "all movies" ...
and it's also one of the reasons why VR goggles, even if there's a nice
little market for them, aren't going to become as ubiquitous as
smartphones.
I thought the reason why 3d didn't take over movies is because theatres got greedy and wanted to charge you for googles even if you brought your own.
The one 3D movie i went to see at the local imax, Tron legacy ( that i regret.. i basically missed the movie due to the instant migraine during the opening credits ) they used polarized glasses of some sort. You got to keep them afterwards. Just recently ran across them and tossed them.
Mon Nov 06 2023 12:33:05 EST from darknetuserI thought the reason why 3d didn't take over movies is because theatres got greedy and wanted to charge you for googles even if you brought your own.
2023-11-06 12:54 from Nurb432
The one 3D movie i went to see at the local imax, Tron legacy ( that
i regret.. i basically missed the movie due to the instant migraine
during the opening credits ) they used polarized glasses of some
sort. You got to keep them afterwards. Just recently ran across
them and tossed them.
That is the point.
You used to buy the movie ticket and they asked you if you wanted to buy the googles with them. If you didn't have googles, you bought them. If not, you didn't.
Then they started selling you the googles alongisde the ticket, without giving you an option to save a few bucks by using googles you already owned instead.
That is the point a lot of pepople got angry as heck and quitted 3d movies altogether.
Oh, there is a crosseyed guy in my group of friends so we stopped going to 3d movies when we got together, because this guy can't really take advntage of 3D projections.
Or the problem with a lot of 3D capable TVs being 3-4x moar expensive than their 2D counterparts. Then the problem with "passive goggles" where different manufacturers put the polarization in different directions for Left and Right, so you couldn't use one passive goggles for a different brand of TV. Oh, and then the "active goggles" which were even moar proprietary, in some cases they were model-specific!
Gee, I wonder why 3D never caught on.
Mon Nov 06 2023 12:33:05 EST from darknetuser
I thought the reason why 3d didn't take over movies is because theatres got greedy and wanted to charge you for googles even if you brought your own.
Ah, that was after this as some people in our group had their own. As it was also my last movie, i never got to see the slow roll back to make a buck. ( actually now that i think of it.. was the first in at least a decade and last movie of any kind in a theater for me. Never was a fan of the 'big screen', being glued to a chair for 2 hours, and sitting so close to random humans )
Mon Nov 06 2023 13:24:13 EST from darknetuserThen they started selling you the googles alongisde the ticket, without giving you an option to save a few bucks by using googles you already owned instead.
3D has been a fad for decades. I have a couple of observations as to why, some of which could potentially be fixed and one which cannot.
The proprietary glasses thing is part disorganization and part greed. It seems simple that someone like SMPTE or VESA could call out a set of standards for 3D video, with a standardized subcarrier that tells the goggles which eyepiece to shutter at any given moment. This would work for television screens, it would work for headsets (even though those have two screens), it could even work for the little things that attach to a phone. Heck, even if you could just get Nvidia and Samsung and Apple on board, the rest of the industry would just follow along.
(It was easier with film, since you can polarize one side vertically and the other horizontally, but that isn't possible with video [yet?].)
The bigger problem is, quite simply, the way we perceive artificial 3D. To give the illusion of three dimensional projection into a two dimensional space, we use any of many different methods to feed a different image into each of the viewer's eyes. The problem begins there. When you look at such an image, the *perceived* focal depth is different from the *actual* focal depth of the projection. And that, dear viewers, is why it gives you a headache. Some people are more sensitive to it than others. Some will begin experiencing a headache after only a few moments.
Some can tolerate it for the length of a theme park attraction. Some can tolerate it for the duration of a feature length film. But no one can tolerate it for an extended period of time.
To avoid this side effect, you would need to project a three dimensional image into a three dimensional space. And that is not something you can just put up for sale in Best Buy and have people set up in their living rooms.
Once upon a time there were standards.. but no one honors them anymore. ( back to your greed statement. gotta have walled gardens )
Sat Nov 11 2023 12:56:18 EST from IGnatius T Foobar
someone like SMPTE or VESA could call out a set of standards for 3D video,
I could be wrong but i thought that is how the one movie i saw worked. I do know they were passive polarized glasses, and it was only one screen. It was an imax theater, so donno what was going on in the back end. perhaps 2 projectors? i donno, us serfs dont get to look behind the curtain, so to speak.
Sat Nov 11 2023 12:56:18 EST from IGnatius T Foobar
(It was easier with film, since you can polarize one side vertically and the other horizontally, but that isn't possible with video [yet?].)
Actually I think it's been almost exactly half a century since we really started commercializing things that take advantage of the polarization of light waves. That's how LCD displays work, and they've been around for about that long.
Ah, figured by then it was digital too.
But i rarely do theaters, so dont follow it much.. ( as mentioned.. )
Sat Nov 11 2023 18:15:15 EST from IGnatius T FoobarIMAX is film, and film can be polarized.
I think 3D as a fad goes beyond technical reasons, though. I actually think it just doesn't bring that much value. I can't quite put it into words right now, but it's like that Minecraft was able to outsell tons of photorealistic games for many years. What makes a video game fun isn't the eye candy, it's the gameplay and character (as in the artistry, not the characters in the story, though those of course contribute to what I'm talking about). People have been looking at flat images for longer than recorded history. We all understand them and are plenty capable of letting ourselves get immerses in them. You don't actually need to play tricks on my depth perception to achieve this.
In fact, speaking of video games, I long got over chasing graphics and I actually prefer presentation and graphical aesthetics of the early to mid 90s. I guess you could argue that's just nostalgia, though. Like audiophiles who insist vinyl sounds better.
I think it *could* if done well. But the few movies i saw were mostly a gimmick. Even tho i cant watch it on big screen without my head exploding from pain, i was able on my phone-based VR headset, so i did see a few of them. Sure, 'interesting' but they didnt 'use' it. Now, for 3D architecture design walk thru, or CAD work and such, ( anyone here remember VMRL ? ) it was great. But movies, it was 'well, ok', and i could see that it had promise, but no follow thru.
Oh, and might have mentioned it before, but i have a slight case lazy eye, but not one you can see, its the signal that is delayed, just enough. Which im sure helps contribute to my almost constant migraines. So my depth perception, while there, is not the same as most people. As a kid i hated paying ball. "hey, the ball, catch it" look up, see a ball, one eye washes out from the light, then it hits my face ) When i was a little kid my parents got me a view-master. I had no idea at the time what it as for, i looked. saw 2 images of the road runner and the coyote, sort of 'up in the air'. "um, ok, thanks..." and put it away. Flash forward to when i was about 15 or so, and i learned what it was all about in history class ( i think.. might have been art class. ) and figured out how to merge the images and see it in 3D.. was the coolest thing i have ever seen :) Went down and bought a bunch at the toy store that same day. So when VR headsets came out, i was thrilled to death. Just to see it a non-starter due to lack of content, other than a few niche cases.
Sun Nov 12 2023 09:24:36 EST from zelgomerI actually think it just doesn't bring that much value.
Seems like all that matters is the projector. You can have two video
channels and project each through a polarized filter. Maybe doing it
that way results in too much light loss causing the image to appear
dim, I don't know.
Modern video projectors work by shining a light through an LCD. LCD displays are already polarized, so further polarization will naturally make the image appear even dimmer. That's why consumer grade 3D televisions use active shutter glasses.
Ironically, the easiest way to do 3D would be the way they did it half a century ago: with anaglyph glasses. (Yes I had to look up the name.) Those are the ones with red and cyan lenses. You lose the ability to display full color, of course, but the solution is extremely low-tech and works on existing equipment.
I think 3D as a fad goes beyond technical reasons, though. I actually
think it just doesn't bring that much value. I can't quite put it into
words right now, but it's like that Minecraft was able to outsell tons
of photorealistic games for many years. What makes a video game fun
isn't the eye candy, it's the gameplay and character (as in the
artistry, not the characters in the story, though those of course
contribute to what I'm talking about). People have been looking at flat
images for longer than recorded history. We all understand them and are
plenty capable of letting ourselves get immerses in them. You don't
actually need to play tricks on my depth perception to achieve this.
In fact, speaking of video games, I long got over chasing graphics and
I actually prefer presentationand graphical aesthetics of the early to
mid 90s. I guess you could argue that's just nostalgia, though. Like
audiophiles who insist vinyl sounds better.
My opinion is that, in an artistic medium such as films and videogames, visual beauty is an optional thing that is good to have. It is a bit like horses: I am gonna love any who wannas pull my beard if she is ugly, but if she is beautyful to look at, then it is a plus.
The issue is some media is trying to compensate its lack of actual substance with visual beauty only, and that does not work. A hot blonde with big boobs is fine to look at but if she can't cook nor work not have clever conversation, she is useless in the long run.
Videogames are a special case because modern ones suffer a number of issues that are drectly related to monetization schemes.
My opinion is that, in an artistic medium such as films and
videogames, visual beauty is an optional thing that is good to have. It
is a bit like horses: I am gonna love any who wannas pull my beard if
she is ugly, but if she is beautyful to look at, then it is a plus.
Sure, it is better if it's attractive. And of course there are plenty of old games and movies that are super ugly. But what I was trying to say is that you can, at least in my opinion, achieve beauty even with limited tech. It takes some artistic skill and creativity. It's like you said about compensating for lack of sustance. I think it also applies to the art itself. Sometimes the eye candy tech and gimmicks are used to try to hide a lack of artistic creativity.
Anyway. I guess I just haven't seen a 3D film that wowed me all that much, and I just don't look forward to it all that much. Or at all, really.
Anyway. I guess I just haven't seen a 3D film that wowed me all that
much, and I just don't look forward to it all that much. Or at all,
really.
I am curious as to which 3D movies you have watched. The only ones I remember watching in 3D are Avatar and Gravity. Gravity falls square in the category of films that based all their appeal on presentation and aesthetics.
I have watched some more but I can't name them.
I know you didnt ask me, but my theater experience was Tron Legacy.
Tried a couple others on my headset: Toy story 1, Solo ( the star wars thing... no idea of the actual content just watched to see the 3D ), and one of the avengers movies, i think it was the first one, infinity war and several demo files i picked up. Oh and of course Legacy again, since i missed it totally on the big screen and wanted to see what i missed.. seemed to be nothing really as the 2D version was about the same really. A friend of mine liked 3D porno. Honestly didnt care for at any of that, seemed silly to me.
And of course i had a 3D client for OpenSIm, which has since vanished, to my frustration. and a few google cardboard demo apps which uses the gyroscope and accelerometer to move you around in-world. Good way to lose your balance an fall out of an office chair :) One you could walk down the hall, and it tracked motion into the 'scene'.
Oh, and the AR thing that used a cube with what looked almost like QR codes on all 6 sides, so it could identify them and their position as it moved.... ( "merge cube" ) To me, that was neat. The cube would vanish and it woudl be replaced with an 'object' that you could move around and such. ( like a museum bust, for example, or a game piece ). Seen tables like that too, sort of like the chess board on starwars.. where the table was a design it could 'hide' with a fake object. AR had a lot of promise with stuff like that. May still with these new AR glasses that keep coming out ( not bulky headsets ), donno