James Cameron thinks he can get viewers asking to wear 3D glasses
By Richard Lawler 
posted November 24th 2009 11:56AM
posted November 24th 2009 11:56AM
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Watch CBS News Videos Online
posted November 24th 2009 11:56AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I have zero interest in 3D anything. I'd much rather they focus on a higher resolution (which I know is already in the works) and making that mainstream.
Or instead of theaters spending $$ on 3D, how about clean the f'ing place?
@ack154 Higher resolution is at a point of diminishing returns. 4k on a 50" screen is a waste of resources, you have to be within a couple of feet to see the pixels on a 1080p image. Of course when we all have 100" screens in our living room it may make a difference :) For the industry as a whole 3D will generate a lot more excitement among the masses than increased resolution.
@ack154, unless greater than 100" screens become commonplace in households, 1080p is already as high as picture resolution needs to get for home viewing. Anything greater would be an imperceivable improvement without aforementioned giant screens.
@ack154
I agree last time I went to the movies ( AMC ) the place looked like it has not be clean or taken care of since it was built.
This is why I rather wait for the Blu-Ray and watch at home.
@ack154:
All that 3D is going to do is raise ticket prices, as if they aren't high enough already. Theaters are the ones who have the spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace projectors or equip them with 3D capable hardware. This equates to higher ticket prices.
Say a family of 4 wants to go out to see a movie. With ticket prices already at 10 dollars or more, they can't afford to. Jack up the price just to sit there wearing some stupid glasses and they really can't afford it.
3D is a waste of time and money. There are many better things these resources could be going towards, such as cleaning like you suggested, than towards 3D. It's a gimmick and a joke.
Take this movie for instance. Cameron says he has spent the last few years working on it to ensure the 3D in it is a success. That's fine, maybe it will be a success. But look at how much longer it to him to complete it to make sure that 3D worked. Other movies won't be up to par, and 3D will take a nose dive.
For me to be sold on 3D, well, seeing is believing. And the only place in the county that I live in that could be considered an electronics store is the Wal-Mart. And IF they set up a demo TV, someone will have broken the chain/string on the 3D glasses for viewing and run off with them before I get there to sample it.
Anyway, they will have to keep on making more movies in 3D for the home tech to catch on. Eventually there will have to eventually be at least half the movies/TV shows made in 3D to make this a new standard, otherwise it's remains a niche item.
From this article, it's sounds like James Cameron is still treating 3D as a niche item rather than a standard.
How many people will spend the extra bucks for the home setup for just viewing the occasional new release in 3D? I guess time will tell.
I suppose that eventually all TVs (of a minimum size) would be 3D ready.
The movie industry will have to keep supporting 3D for years to come if it's going to become something that people will use and continue to use. Personally I think it'll just end another gimmick that 10-15 years from now will be a feature on mid- and upper-range equipment that most people won't even use.
@LarryL
I have now seen Pixar's Up both in 3D in the theater and just now on 2D on Blu-ray and by far I prefer the 2D experience. It was much sharper and brighter. I was surprised how much dimmer 3D made the movie.
I saw part of one of these videos on the television. The whole ugly vs stylistic glasses thing came up. I changed the channel, so I missed any other arguments.
""Do I get to wear the glasses?" "
Who likes glasses of any kind? Who would rather just be able to see?
The first thing I do when the 3D movies is over is take the glasses off. Why? Because I don't think they look good on me? No. They give me a freaking headache. I've stopped going to 3D movies because of it.
If Pixar's movies don't get people to wanting to use the glasses, then I don't see what Cameron can do that's sufficiently more interesting than that.
3D is interesting, but the fatigue of whatever the glasses do really needs to be addressed. I think part of it is the technology that alternates shutters with one digital projector rather than two projections is what gets me. It makes 3D more available, but it's kind of annoying, the image is more flickery. I hope good 3D displays can be made such that the glasses aren't necessary.
@JDM
Pixar does get people to watch movies in 3D. The fact is that 3D movies have been very successful at the theater even though the cost of admission is higher than the same movie in 2D.
I didn't mean to say that Pixar wasn't doing the job, but I just don't see what Cameron can do to top that if Pixar hasn't already done it. The quotes from this article suggest an oversized ego or he's ignorant of what's already done.
The glasses are not shutter glasses. The shutter 3D glasses were for CRT screens on computer in the late 90s and early 2000s.
The way movie 3D glasses work is that the projected image is polarized, and the lenses of the glasses are polarized. There are actually 2 projected images, with the polarization angles 90 degrees off from each other, and the polarization of one of the lenses is also turned 90 degrees. There really shouldn't be a shutter on the projector either (although there might be), for flicker free viewing it is better to have 2 projectors with 2 different polarization filters (but maybe then difficult to line them up perfectly?)
Every LCD screen in the world is also polarized. Try looking at the screen with a pair of polarized sunglasses. Rotate the glasses and you will see the screen turn black depending on the angle. Because of this fact, it isn't that much more costly to make a standard LCD screen 3D! It requires double the 2D resolution to have the images for both eyes there without losing any clarity in 3D, and just rotate the polarization on every other pixel. You can buy a 24" 3D monitor for the computer which does this already and works with the same glasses as IMAX for around $1200.
For regular polarized sunglasses to be used as the 3D glasses, all you need to do is rotate the polarization angle of one of the lenses 90 degrees. Normally for maximum reduction of glare from light reflecting off water or pavement, the lenses are supposed to be polarized horizontally. But I have seen some in rite-aid for $12 because the manufacturer screwed up and polarized them vertically. You can take a lense from one of these and swap it with a lense from a normal pair of polarized sunglasses and voila, you have stylish 3D glasses.
@glugglug I didn't intend to suggest that the glasses do the shuttering, it's the projector that does. Ideally, there should be two projectors, but in reality, a single projector system is a lot less expensive and there's a lot less to screw up too. When a theatrical projector easily costs a hundred thousand dollars and up, it's easy to see why the theater owner would want to avoid buying another projector, the flicker is only slight, but I think it might be causing fatigue for some people. The old film setup had to be two projectors, but digital projectors can handle it with just one unit.
I think the most recent design for theatrical projection now uses circular polarized light, left hand and right hand. If you notice, you can rotate the glasses with respect to the normal of the screen, the intensity doesn't shift like it used to with older polarized 3D projection. I think circular polarization works better for blocking light intended for the other eye.
3D gaming is awesome thus far, I could see watching this in 3D.
I think there should be 3d with no GOOGles