3D: is this the resurgence that counts?
By Darren Murph 
posted Jan 23rd 2009 1:24PM
posted Jan 23rd 2009 1:24PM
3D productions have literally been around for scores, and up until recently, pretty much every venue that displayed material in the third dimension did so by projecting stereoscopic images. In other words, viewers were forced to wear heinous glasses in order to experience the true depth, and even today, that very barrier to enjoyment is pinned (rightfully so, we believe) as the primary reason for its inability to gain traction amongst moviegoers. More specifically, the technique used in years past involves filming two images simultaneously, with a pair of cameras situated side-by-side and in exact synchronization. When viewed through the aforesaid glasses, the human brain reassembles the imagery as a single 3D image. Sure, we're simplifying things drastically here, but anyone who has sat down behind a pair of those spectacles fully understands what we're getting at.
But let's face it -- we all understand that glasses-based 3D will never thrive in such a way that scads of individuals race out to adopt the technology within their own homes. Or, at least not by using the same antiquated red / blue technology that has been relied on so frequently in the past. So, the big question is what are 3D backers doing now to revive interest in a format that most people already shrug off as a joke, and how on Earth do they plan to improve it enough to not only make it viable again, but downright desirable?
Over the past year in particular, we've seen just about everyone jump completely on board the 3D bandwagon. Oh sure, James Cameron was pining to reinvigorate 3D cinema way back in 2006, and there were already whispers about screening live sporting events in 3D that same year, but it's taken until now for any of those far-fetched plans to come to fruition. We first started to wonder if Hollywood, movie producers and general managers of sporting clubs were actually serious about re-pursuing 3D in the early part of 2008. Practically out of nowhere, DreamWorks Animations and Pixar announced that all of its future films would be created for 3D viewing, the NBA began showcasing live games in 3D as part of a trial run and Hannah Montana / U23D both managed to generate some serious buzz amongst moviegoers.
From there, it's hard to tell if the rest of the industry support simply fell in line coincidentally, or if everyone had just taken this long to get their acts together. 3D proponents Samsung and Texas Instruments began to deliver new wares to encourage the at-home adoption of 3D, and other companies began focusing on ways to easily bring 3D material into the home on formats we were already comfortable with owning. Clearly, the new push for 3D not only involved the expansion of 3D-capable theaters, but the deliverance of 3D content into the home.
We sort of get the feeling that content guardians are hoping that 3D will see the same level of attachment as has HDTV. Just a few years back, finding a pal with an HDTV and a sufficient amount of HD content was a chore; today, it's well on its way to becoming just as pervasive as the DVD player in America, and other nations aren't too far behind. The challenge, however, is to convince consumers that 3D is just as worthwhile a technology as viewing programming in 1080i, and of course, convincing content producers to provide material taps into that third dimension. Of course, we've already got consortiums being created to ensure that it happens, so good luck trying to be the resistance.
Today, we've got the likes of Dolby, Mitsubishi, NVIDIA, Aspen, TI, Philips, projectiondesign, TDVision, 3ality Digital, JVC, Hyundai, GestureTek, InFocus, RealD, LG, NEC, Sony, iZ3D, Sky, Alioscopy, Cinedigm and a gaggle of other up and coming firms working to ensure that 3D actually becomes a household name over the next few years. Heck, Panasonic is already pushing for a 3D protocol to be baked into Blu-ray Discs in order to get 3D high-def material into the home within the the new dozen or so months. Theaters across the globe are working feverishly to equip their cinemas with 3D equipment, and content owners are doing everything in their power to generate enough 3D material to make people actually care enough to want it in their homes. The bottom line? 3D has more support from those with fat wallets and unwavering determination than it has ever had in the past, but it's really about what future changes will occur that'll determine the long-term viability.
Speaking of which, aren't you curious as to how all of those companies are planning to make things different this go round? First off, it was absolutely critical that 3D received a generous amount of backing from every possible angle before it moved forward with advertising campaigns and the like. As we've seen, that support is definitely there. Unfortunately, the shift away from glasses-required 3D to no-glasses-needed 3D seems to be moving at a glacial pace, and even the 3D demonstrations that we viewed at CES sans goggles were less than riveting. Still, there are some interesting approaches being made -- for starters, major sporting events are beginning to be shown in 3D cinemas everywhere, giving sports enthusiasts a reason to leave the house and sit down for an up close and personal look at the big game. It's not completely out of the realm of feasibility to think that most major championships and All-Star games would be offered locally in 3D in the near future, and with sports as big as the NFL (in the US), we could see theaters opening their doors each Sunday for pigskin fanatics who can't wait to see 300 pound gentlemen suited up and headed for their laps.
Beyond that, major movie studios are definitely looking to push their releases in 3D loving homes. 3D-capable televisions are already on the market, but it'll be tough sledding trying to convince cash-strapped individuals to buy in without a copious amount of interesting material to go with it. Without question, we see the future bringing big waves of 3D content to the home, be it through traditional pay-TV methods or, more likely, through Blu-ray Discs or digital downloads.
The biggest unknown about the future of 3D, however, is the actual technology behind it. Even with oodles of content, why would consumers decide now that strapping a set of goofy goggles on the family as they gather 'round to watch a Saturday night film is acceptable when it has been rejected time and time again in the past? Sure, methodologies have made viewing angles better and the 3D experience as a whole sharper, but to us, it really boils down to this: are you seriously kosher with rockin' a set of rectangular glasses each time you want to enjoy a program?
The glasses-free approach to 3D has been around for years now, but it has taken until recently for technology firms to really sink any significant amounts of cash into it. Without getting too deep in the technobabble, this autostereoscopic technique ditches the many left-eye / right-eye alternatives in order to mix a handful of slightly offset views of a scene in real time. From there, an optical lenticular lens is flanked on the front of the display, and hundreds of so-called "micro-lenses operate like miniature magnifying glasses to display the eight points of view that change according to the viewer's position." In theory, this solves the whole problem that has hindered 3D in the past, but in reality, it's not nearly as awesome. In fact, we were actually more impressed (albeit more nauseated) with the glasses-required showing of the 2009 BCS National Championship game than the many glasses-free demo kiosks in Vegas. But, to be fair, we certainly dig where this is headed. If manufacturers can somehow figure out how to sharpen up autostereoscopic images and make them actually inviting to watch (read: completely override the gimmick factor with bona fide awesomeness), there actually could be an untapped market for 3D in the home. The issue here is execution, and to this day, we've yet to see a 3D showing pulled off without at least one serious drawback.
Make no mistake, the financial support necessary to take this technology to the next level has finally arrived, and there's hardly anything that can't be accomplished with enough cheddar, brains and free time. The next 12 to 24 months should really indicate whether or not the biggest 3D push ever actually has a chance at gaining traction, but unlike Blu-ray and HD streaming -- which provide tangible benefits that consumers already desire -- 3D first has to overcome its well earned stereotype of being nothing more than a cheap trick suitable only for second-rate Disney attractions.
I have not seen any TV shows or movies in 3D and it sounds like it would be fun if done properly. The theatres could really drive more sales if it becomes popular because they have the equipment and content to do so. They will also help in standardization.
There are still segments of the market that will demand regular viewing and will not watch the content in 3D. Those who feel uncomfortable with the equipment (glasses) and those who become nauseated. Hopefully the new technologies are mentioned in the article will come up to speed fast. They won't make it for the crop of 2009 movies that have already been made though.
I suggest grabbing a pair of cheap anaglyph glasses just for a try. You can pick them up off Amazon for almost nothing and if you're in the US some websites will send you a pair absolutely free if you just send a stamped addressed envelope.
You can then get 3D Drivers (Nvidia supply their own but you need Vista, or you can grab iZ3D for any Windows OS/system) and play almost any game on the market in 3D.
Its not true full colour, but its definately an incredible experience all the same. I'm a huge 3D fan (got lenticular posters up in my room) and for the price of free, its definately worth sampling if you've never tried 3D before - you'll see what the hype's about.
I'm saving buying an HDTV for our living room (got one in my bedroom) until decent 3D-ready ones are available at the size I'd prefer. But I'd definately get one, just with the hope that 3D programming may become mainstream at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Then again... I bought an HD DVD player. I have been wrong before!
Thank you for analyzing this.
While auto-stereoscopic 3D is a plus, glasses are not a deterrent to gamers and Blu-Ray viewers. This is according to 2D gamers who don't yet own 3D equipment, and experienced 3D gamers are much more forgiving:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/cgi-bin/press.cgi?press_id=28
These results are 100% based on customers, not industry.
Regards,
Neil
Being one of the hundreds of thousands of monocular individuals across the nation, I am jealous but really hope they don't make this standard. My viewpoint of a 3D movie is all of the frames at once. This standard would make movies and television completely unwatchable for me. I'm hoping for a resurgence in hologram technology (ala that old western arcade game from the mid-90's).
Jordan - if this standard emerges a momoscopic viewing option for all programs will be available for sure so you have nothing to fear. From all of the 3d video players I have (I have several) they all provide this just in case.
Even if you have sight in only one eye, if you wear the glasses you will see one set of images clearly. The 3-D effect will be lost, of course, but you will not see two sets of images at once.
I can honestly say I don't give a crap and doubt anyone else will either. And glasses can be uncomfortable for many people, myself included.
I have been to the cinema and seen movies in 3D. I even went, as a young teenager, to see Jaws 3D. It was a gimmick, it still is.
you must mean red/blue glasses- yes those are a gimmik. technology has gone a faaar way from then lol. go to an IMAX
@ yuriythebeast
Jaws 3D used exactly the same polarized lenses (as did the handful of other movies out in the early 80s like SpaceHunter 3D) that are leading the 3D resurgence in the late naughties. I hear so many people saying how 3D is now so much better than the red/blue lenses we used to have to put up with, but the only stuff I've ever seen/heard about using red/blue lenses was in comic books or some visual stuff back in the 60s (or 50s?). The only real difference today is the advent of digital cinema that can deliver the stuff more crisply, and the true technological advances of stereoscopic screens - which as the article points out, aren't particulalry practical at the moment. I can only think that the primary driver this generation is the electronic manufacturers who need to keep driving consumer demand for newer/better products: B&W TVs, color TVs, video, DVD, widescreen TVs, Hi Def video/TVs, giant TVs and now 3D. I'm sure the next step will be wider 2.85:1 aspect ratio TVs just to keep demand going. If there are some real, significant advances in 3D cinematic technology that I'm missing this generation, I'd appreciate it if someone could point them out to me.
I have been to an IMAX, went to see that 3D thing that is on rotation at the Kennedy Space Center. Not exactly a memorable film, it had something to do with living on a space station, and what I took most away from it was how disorientating it was. People and things did not seem to be the right size. This is not an issue I have with regular movies.
And like my other respondee, I have never seen red/blue glasses. Jaws 3D was in colour, which kind of precludes the red/blue glasses trick of the 1950s. Every 3D movie I have seen used polarization. And every single 3D movie I've seen sucked.
Meh, I just found this "new" 3D to be something to get people to spend money on going to a theater, rather than renting movies. I mean, with sticky floors, annoying kids, cellphones, and excessive prices for everything, what more "thrills" to you need to bring you to your local theaters...
I actually just saw My Bloody Valentine 3D last night and expected it to be gimmicky and hardly add to the movie. Well, I was pleasantly surprised. After spending my extra 2.50 and getting nifty retro looking frames, I was utterly amazed by the level of depth added to the picture. You definitely get that sense of 3d with everything, not just special effects. People, cars, buildings all take on a new level of realism. I found myself closing one eye (which gives a perfectly fine image) and thinking just how dull it looks without the 3d effect.
Sure, the movie wasn't the greatest, but the sense of presence is impressive. I hope all new movies include this. Really, it's something that needs to be experienced and not described. I recommended about 10 people today to go see it.
My only gripes are A) glasses get annoying after a while (I wear contacts normally because of this), and B) because of the polarization, some of the light is lost giving a darker image.
Do you get to keep the glasses, or is that a rental fee?
it uses RealD technology and circular polarizer plastic glasses. IMO it's the best 3D technology and the cheapest to make too. The positive side of this technology is that the glasses are cheap (hence you can keep the glasses) and with a minor tweak, they can encode the digital master onto blu-ray (or even DVD) and played back at home with minor adjustments in brightness only.
I just got a "3d Ready" tv and I'd totally rock some glasses to watch 3d programming or play 3d games! I just hope that the tech doesn't change so much that my "3d Ready" TV isn't ready for the change in technology and is no longer 3d ready.
If you'd like, with a glasses kit and a compatible video card (every video card made in the past 5 years iirc) you can already do that with 3d games. PC games at least. I had a friend with that a while back. Made every game look 3 dimensional, but he was kind of a dick about letting anyone else touch his glasses, and I really didn't want to have to talk to that irritating little man any more than I had to, so I didn't get more than a glance at all of it.
I'll take 1080p programming and then 4k, you can keep the glasses. The only glasses I am interesting in having in my theater room are ones filled with beer.
This brings back bad memories. The first time I saw stereoscopic 3d was at universal studios when I was about 8 years old. It was I Michael Jackson video and he tried to reach out and tough me. No joke.
wow,
first: it's at Epcot, not Universal Studios and it's called Captain EO
second: it's spelled "touch", not "tough"
I have to wear regular prescription glasses all day because I'm very near-sighted. Are you able to wear these 3D-glasses over normal glasses? If not, the movie would pretty much be a blur to me.
I'm pretty sure the free glasses in the theaters are designed so that you can wear them over your regular glasses, yeah.
However, if your regular glasses are polarized sunglasses, you're screwed :)
http://www.ENLIGHTEN3D.com
This is something Apple hopefully gets involved in. They'll make sure for one thing that image ghosting simply doesn't occur which is a problem in all the glasses based system I have seen.
You're absolutely right about the ghosting. Even when it's so subtle that most people don't notice it, it does cause a high level of discomfort over time. It's like when your corrective eyewear Rx isn't just right... makes you feel "off" or, worse yet, make you nauseous/headachy. And, when there's ghosting, the stereo image can't hang together, so you see diminished depth.
There is currently NO commercial system out there (not even NVIDIA's) who can honestly claim no ghosting. What's needed in the industry is UNBIASED standards and benchmarks (Jon Peddie, how about you???) so that consumers can better understand what they're buying. If this doesn't happen, and the quality doesn't vastly improve, this round of 3D will be yet another flash in the pan.
I saw My Bloody Valentine in RealD. RULES! I wear prescription glasses and the "Rayban" 3D glasses totally fit over 'em.
Have loved 3D since the fifties. Can't wait to see 3D developed for the home theater scene.
Would be great to see "Creature from the Black Lagoon" at home in 3D.
If the studios are smart, they'll add 3D capabilities to all their Blu Ray discs, and you could watch it in 2D or 3D -viewers choice.
I saw all the 3D CES had to offer in person. 2 years ago at CEDIA I thought it was gimmicky. After CES I think it is awesome. The video games are so much better in 3D but that wasn't the turning point for me. It was watching soccer in 3D. You actually felt like you were on the field. Not like how people say HD makes you seem like you are there but really like you are on the field. The sets will have a choice to switch between regular HD and 3D mode so this will end up being bigger than most of you think.
my 67'' samsung is 3d ready im waitin on sony to update ps3 bios cheaper then buying glasses pc software package. theres a site i signed beta on that claims it will add a Stereoscopic Player on 360 this spring cant wait!!!
i cant believe you are all crying over wearing a pair of glasses for a few hours
I am an 80 year old retired photographer who has been shooting stereo slides since 1952 with the same Stereo Realist camera. I would like to make a few comments on the current 3D controversy.
When will people reporting items concerning the renewed interest in 3D going to get their facts straight. If someone feels that a subject is worth writing about they should at least do some basic research. An article called, "NVIDIA Takes Video Games Into 3D" states: "This approach is called stereoscopic because the computer sends separate images to each eye. Objects in the two images are slightly offset from each other—a gap the brain interprets as depth, resulting in a compelling 3D illusion." The 3D image is NOT an illusion. An illusion is an erroneous perception of reality. A misleading visual image. When you observe something, the parallax difference between the left eye image and the right eye image enables the brain to construct the stereoscopic image. When you observe a 3D image through some kind of visual aid you are experiencing that same difference in parallax, which means it is a real image and not an illusion.
The same question applies to most reporter's erroneous belief that the 3D movies of the fifties were anaglyphic and presented through red and blue pieces of cellophane. I cannot think of one first run 3D feature film of the fifties that was presented that way. They were all presented with a two projector system through polarizing filters shown on a silverized screen so as not to depolarize the images. The glasses were also polarizing filters that separated the left and right image. And, when the projectionist did his job properly (which seldom was the case) the 3D image was superb. Cardboard red and blue cellophane filters were usually reserved for cheap 3D ads and comic books. And, it saddens my heart that there are greedy fools around now, ready to present that anaglyphic garbage to young people today who are not familiar with 3D, and suggest that this is what 3D on television is all about. This kind of greedy stupidity will set 3D back several years in the minds of those who are unfamiliar with sterescopic principles. This is what happened in the fifties. Email me and I'll tell you that story.
Lastly I would like to correct the following quote: "In recent years several companies have developed 3D computer displays, with results ranging from disappointing to, literally, nauseating. Graphics specialist Nvidia (NVDA) has a new approach that promises to take computing into the third dimension." This is certainly NOT a new approach. The field-sequential system that utilizes shutter glasses has been around for years. It is probably true that NVIDIA has a quality system that I am sure is state of the art. But then, so is the price. Not only for the system, but the cost of a brand new extra expensive TV set. I have a system I spent less that $100.00 on and the only drawback is that it can only be used on a CRT (cathode ray tube) TV set. But right now, that's what most poor people have anyway.
Speaking of people. In today's world most people wear glasses. If for nothing else, to shut out the sun's glare. Is it so inconceivable that they would wear glasses to view a film in the way most of them actually see the world. If one is fortunate enough to have binocular vision, isn't viewing still and moving pictures on a flat surface that mushes everything together rather antiquated? When we view a regular image, the only way we can get any feeling of depth is through perspective and relative size. Can this truly be enough?
Christopher R. Mohr Sr.
Christopher, thank you for your clarifications. You were right on on every point. I am with you 100%--I so wish that people that report on 3D would get their facts straight, not to mention quit using the same ol' overused rhetoric--how many times do we have to read that in order to see 3D you have to "don goofy goggles," or better yet, view it "sans eyewear" for "eye-popping 3D effects"? (N.B. each author seems compelled to include some variation on this theme--for a fun game, see where the author of this article used his worn-out version.)
A large part of the problem is that the industry is full of folks who either are new at stereo, or have been around a long time perpetrating myths. They, in turn, are informing the authors of these articles. People who actually know what they're talking about are few and far between, and the authors don't realize this, because they hear the same BS from pretty much every 3D fanatic they talk to. (I still think that there's no excuse for the use of the same verbiage, over and over, to describe the experience... That's just bad journalism.)
In order to create a stereo-3D system that delivers truly compelling stereo imagery, people need to start thinking outside the box--and listening to people like you, Christopher, who actually know what they're talking about. Thank you for your years of work and your experience!
I think you are missing the point on the phrase "3d illusion". If, in fact, you are looking at something two-dimensional (images projected on a flat screen), and through technology those images are made to present a 3d image, even if they do so through the same means as viewing an actual 3d object, then you ARE viewing a "3d illusion". No 3d object exists, yet you see one. Therefore it IS an illusion in the truest sense. Yes, that illusion is created by mimicking the same process by which we view READ objects as 3-dimensional, but that doesn't make it any less of an illusion, since it is still showing you something that does not truly exist in three dimensions.
The technology changes so fast that making a blanket statement swearing off 3-D because it is a gimmick or because of glasses is a bit premature.
Only way to really tell is to sample the tech as it will be when they've finalized it for television.
Also, going to a movie theater sporting the latest tech is also a good idea. And for the person talking about how the theaters are just trying to get you back there. Yeah, they are obviously trying to do that. Because up until 10-15 years ago, the theater experience was something you couldn't get anywhere else.
Now, the average home theater gives an experience that is close enough for most people. 3-D is the next logical step to get people back to the theaters. And if the 3-D is spectacular, it will only take one viewing to realize that you'd rather watch 3-D than 2-D.
All of the movies I enjoy would benefit from being shown in 3D. The few I have seen work very well and I would like to watch them at home. I have no problem with the glasses and suspect this will be my only option anyway as I much prefer watching movies on a large screen so the only option is via a projector.
I will be waiting for a 3D HD projector at the $2000 price point. As wall as a player. If possible one that uses SD Cards. So perhaps a 3D standard is required for this type of media too.
(I here star wars is likley to be converted to 3D, I would prefer that it was completely re-made using camera shots that would make better use of 3D effects).
Before David Susilo gets on my case that should be well not wall and hear not here
New 3D technologies will always have a difficult time gaining market share because no matter what you do you always come back to these problems, eye strain when wearing glasses and minimal viewing angles on lenticular screens.
These fundamental problems for the viewer are not going away.
I have had two LCD shutter glasses systems, one got sold with the Asus GeForce2-7100-deluxe-combo card it came with, I still have the other which came with an Elsa Gladiac card. The former needed a cable to the graphics card and were quite bulky, the latter are smaller and cordless but need batteries, they have an IR sensor, and the video card had a IR transmitter that tapped into the VGA port.
Initially you needed a registry hack and specific drivers, later I think they got incorporated into the nvidia driver. They worked in conjunction with DirectX to render two viewpoints from the 3D-accelerated image. The sequential images were then sent to each eye with the graphics card flipping the LCD shutters . You had to have a very high refresh monitor to not get very bad flicker, but the IIyama I had could just about do 120Hz in 800x600 mode. Quake3 and Unreal Tournament were pretty awesome, but you could only play for about 10 minutes before the flicker would give you a headache :-(
I sold the computer with the wired glasses, with instructions I'd buy the card back one day as a kit as it's fairly rare. I kept the Elsa card and glasses because they were pretty neat. The monitor's been given away too. I'm now on a decent LCD panel, so of course there's no chance to use the 3D glasses.
The best 3D experience I had was seeing The Polar Express in Imax3D, which was stunning (at Arizona Science Centre Imax). I've see a number of other Imax3D movies, more the National Geographic type, but they didn't work so well. I think the Polar Express, being animated, meant they could get much better control of the stereo imagery.
I would *love* to have a dual-projector with polarised goggle 3D system at home. As a previous poster said, when set up properly it is excellent. It would be good for feature films and video games, especially with surround sound.
There was a time when people thought surround sound was a gimmick, and I guess it was until it could be done properly at a fair price. 3D probably falls into this category!
To the comment about light loss almost all of the current state of the art Cinema systems for 3D loose about the same amount of light which is about a 75% loss - think two polarisers at about 50% loss each, although similar results occur for the other methods e.g. Infitec.
The really big win with today's systems is that the digital projection systems can use a single projector using frame sequential images at high frame rates, this means the two eyes see both images registered correctly and the projected image is pretty stable and potentially flicker free. For me they need more than 2K resolution which they currently use.
Personally if the images suffer any kind of problem I usually start getting headaches. This includes shifting focus depths across cuts. Given this bias I still think that 3D will have a wider appeal this time, although I believe that it may only be 10-20% of movies. For me the real success will be other 'events' (live or otherwise) e.g. sports, concerts, etc that will really work.
To clarify the 75% loss is what happens after you boost the light output of the projector and you use a high gain silver screen... simply using two polarisers isn't that good :-)
As sad as it is, I hardly think the poor impressions of cheap 3D theme park attractions will be so quickly forgotten. Today, digital projection allows for much easier and consistent synchronization, which should entice many otherwise unimpressed viewers. Glasses are only the beginning to a technology that is very promising and, with adequate financial backing, should become as everyday as HD programming.
Decent 3DTV not soon, 3D in multiplexes, and location based entertainment sites is where it's at.
Still not there i dont think