3D TV?

February 10, 2010 2:00 PM

3D is all the rage these (warning: video opens with story) days, but will 3D TV ever take off in the home? CNN thinks so, so does Sky Broadcasting in the UK. It's been touted for a while and (as ever) the porn industry is leading the way. But maybe we should just stop and think about things first.......
posted by micklaw (69 comments total)

ESPN is rolling out broadcasts this summer, beginning with World Cup soccer.
posted by Camofrog at 2:05 PM on February 10, 2010

Do you think Eisenhower will be re-elected, too?
posted by jonmc at 2:06 PM on February 10, 2010

I finally saw Avatar this weekend and every five minutes I kept thinking to myself how amazing 3D porn would be. At the same time I think I would be scared if a guy with a dick the size of a telephone pole pointed it straight at me.
posted by nestor_makhno at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2010

Sure, most programming already stinks, but I'm still clamoring for Smell-o-vision.


How about the content, assholes?
posted by defenestration at 2:07 PM on February 10, 2010

I finally saw Avatar this weekend and every five minutes I kept thinking to myself how amazing 3D porn would be. At the same time I think I would be scared if a guy with a dick the size of a telephone pole pointed it straight at me.

Dominic Ford, 3D porn (NSFW, obviously)
posted by The Whelk at 2:09 PM on February 10, 2010

Does anyone know what all this will look like if you do not have stereoscopic vision? I'm blind in my right eye and I haven't paid attention to the latest 3D advances. I don't mind being left out, but I'd hate to have my 2D viewing experience ruined or eliminated.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:09 PM on February 10, 2010

I can't see 3D at all, so um, it won't be taking off in my house.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:10 PM on February 10, 2010

I watched Avatar in 3D and was totally unimpressed. It felt like an animated pop-up book.
posted by Paragon at 2:12 PM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

I kept thinking to myself how amazing 3D porn would be.

Hard Candy. I saw it at a Midnight Movie in SF. The porn was so bad that the audience cheered whenever the action stopped.
posted by lekvar at 2:14 PM on February 10, 2010

I've long said that 3D in the home will NOT become popular as long as you have to wear the stupid little glasses.

See, television in the home is rarely something that people are sitting and staring at, at least not in my experience. People put it on in the corner and let it run as a sort of active wallpaper while they do other things. Or they turn it on and only glance at it as they pass through the room, but are listening from other nearby rooms. Or... or... or... Any number of ways television is used WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT THE SCREEN.

Now, let's say that it's Superbowl Sunday 2012, and you're at the big party to "watch" the game. But you're not watching. You're in the kitchen bullshitting with friends while a plate of snacks is assembled, and then you're back in the room with the game for a few minutes, then you're off getting a fresh beer, then you're back in front of the game, and then you go out back with Fred while he grills another round of hotdogs for everyone, and then you hear a bit cheer indoors and your rush back in to see what just happened...

Are you seriously wearing those fucking glasses that entire time? Are you taking them on and off every time you pass through the room?

What about, say, you're doing housework and you put on some tv to keep you company, and it's, say, a daytime show like Oprah or something. You listen from other rooms, but every once in a while, you hear a guest on or a segment starts that you decide to sit and watch. Do you play the glasses game every time you come into the room to watch your TV?

Call me back when 3D television actually is some kind of 3D creation in space. Until then, I think it will not be all that popular, because of the glasses.
posted by hippybear at 2:18 PM on February 10, 2010 [11 favorites]

my thoughts on 3d, based entirely on watching Avatar.

it's a fad, and it cannot be more than that. When your brain believes it is perceiving 3d objects in 3d space, it expects to be able to shift focus between the fore- and background when you look in different places. not being able to, because the shot is focused on one or the other, is jarring. at the end of the day, I believe 3d inspires us to keep our eyes tightly focused on whatever is actually in focus in the shot because of this. more so than in flat 2d imagery. the eye is free to wander, even if it's over unfocussed material, but it's more uncomfortable to do so in 3d motion pictures. I think we'll get tired of it, and directors will ultimately prefer to work in 2d.

but hey, i could be wrong I guess. it's not likely, because I'm awesome, but I suppose it's possible.
posted by shmegegge at 2:18 PM on February 10, 2010

Immersiontainment with neural-sync headsets are coming to a couch near you, and will make the best 3D of today seem like a flipbook animation with missing pages. Then you can start talking about cognitive dislocation in earnest.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:20 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

From the "stop and think" link: That's the problem. When the movie's over, and you take your glasses off, your brain is still ignoring all those depth perception cues... This condition, known as 'binocular dysphoria', is the price you pay for cheating your brain into believing the illusion of 3D... if it's something you'll be exposed to for hours a day, every day, via your television set. Your brain is likely to become so confused about depth cues that you'll be suffering from a persistent form of binocular dysphoria

I think I have to call bullshit here. I get what he's saying, and I don't disagree that by not getting all the appropriate queues, you are setting yourself up to have some strange experiences. But I think he's underestimating the plasticity of the human brain and it's ability to adapt. We, who experience 3D-on-the-screen in limited doses are confused by it when we get back into the real world, someone who experiences it all the time might very well adapt the ability to snap between the two effortlessly.

I'm not saying that there won't be people who have problems, much like there are those that can't play first person shooters because they get motion sick, but in general, I betting that there is little to be seriously concerned about.
posted by quin at 2:21 PM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Dominic Ford, 3D porn (NSFW, obviously)

I have those 3D glasses from Avatar but this content seems to require the old-school red/green spectacles. Is there any 3D material available online that works with the clear glasses I got at Avatar screening? For info, they're marked "Real D 3D".
posted by Lleyam at 2:25 PM on February 10, 2010

I get the impression the author in the last link should have actually read the Wikipedia article he linked to, because what he calls parallax it calls stereopsis. It really undermines his point (and authority) when he insists that 3D movies only use one depth cue and accidentally names another valid one. Even normal films will feature parallax on moving shots.

I guess one can be forgiven because the page on Virtualboy contains the same mistake:

"Most video games are forced to use monocular cues to achieve the illusion of three dimensions on a two-dimensional screen, but the Virtual Boy was able to create a more accurate illusion of depth through the effect known as parallax."

posted by pwnguin at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2010

I don't care to adapt my brain for watching space smurfs.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2010

3D is at the Wizard of Oz stage right now (Oz is so colorful; Pandora is so 3D-ful), but I think it will take off.

Think of Rambo in a helicoptor in a 2D film versus the Avator version: The marines in Avator are completely enclosed in their bubbles and they are obviously not part of the environment they are invading. With 2D films, this is much harder to convey because showing a dirty window is just showing a dirty window that obscures some, but not all, of the environment.

3D adds to the storytelling element, therefore it will stick around.
posted by sleslie at 2:30 PM on February 10, 2010

Is there any 3D material available online that works with the clear glasses I got at Avatar screening?

In a word, no. The Avatar specs are some kind of magical circular polarization lenses. For a movie theater to be able to even use that kind of 3D tech, it has to install special projectors and a special screen, all of which involve things which your computer screen simply cannot reproduce. No home screen can -- not LCD, DLP or plasma. Those glasses are good for movie theaters only.

Sorry about that, it's just how these things work.
posted by hippybear at 2:33 PM on February 10, 2010

I'm not saying that there won't be people who have problems, much like there are those that can't play first person shooters because they get motion sick, but in general, I betting that there is little to be seriously concerned about.

I agree that the situation is probably not as grave as the author makes it sound. I would have liked to have a had more information about the conclusions that SEGA reached, and if the VR system was only cancelled due to heath concerns.

The affects of prolonged exposure to 3D on a developing mind, are worth addressing though, if it is possible that it could become commonplace.
posted by Hicksu at 2:38 PM on February 10, 2010

've long said that 3D in the home will NOT become popular as long as you have to wear the stupid little glasses.

Not all of these 3D TVs coming out require glasses. I saw a working Hi-Def model from Phillips back in 2007 that required no glasses at all, and supported ~150 degree viewing. So don't worry hippybear, you will get your 3D TV without glasses. You just won't get the hip style.
posted by LoopyG at 2:43 PM on February 10, 2010

I screamed and ducked when the ejaculate came right at me.

Seriously though, I'm not sure how much 3D adds to the experience of watching film.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:51 PM on February 10, 2010

hippybear: Now, let's say that it's Superbowl Sunday 2012, and you're at the big party to "watch" the game. But you're not watching. You're in the kitchen bullshitting with friends while a plate of snacks is assembled, and then you're back in the room with the game for a few minutes, then you're off getting a fresh beer, then you're back in front of the game, and then you go out back with Fred while he grills another round of hotdogs for everyone, and then you hear a bit cheer indoors and your rush back in to see what just happened...

Or you are my father-in-law, and you set up all of your snacks and drinks on a little folding table 18 inches infront of a 40+ inch HD screen and sit behind it on a dining room chair so you don't miss a moment.

Glasses or no, he would buy a 3D TV tomorrow, if he could, and ruin the next 6 months of my life trying to get me to put the damned goggles on.
posted by paisley henosis at 2:52 PM on February 10, 2010

I'm not saying that there won't be people who have problems, much like there are those that can't play first person shooters because they get motion sick, but in general, I betting that there is little to be seriously concerned about.

I thought that one could get over the nausea induced by playing FPS games by increasingly long exposure? At least, that's what I've been hoping. Just got a PS3 and I really want to get to the point where I can play CoD for more than five minutes without wanting to puke.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 2:53 PM on February 10, 2010

all of which involve things which your computer screen simply cannot reproduce. No home screen can -- not LCD, DLP or plasma

That's not necessarily true - in principal, a material that could alter its chirality or orientation of polarization could be interposed between the screen and the viewer to present every other frame to one eye at a time. I think that's how the new range of "3D TVs" that are being introduced work.

Either that, or the glasses have LCD shutters in them that switch rapidly between left and right eye viewing.
posted by kcds at 2:56 PM on February 10, 2010

That's not necessarily true - in principal, a material that could alter its chirality or orientation of polarization could be interposed between the screen and the viewer to present every other frame to one eye at a time. I think that's how the new range of "3D TVs" that are being introduced work.

Either that, or the glasses have LCD shutters in them that switch rapidly between left and right eye viewing.

The question posed was, "Is there any 3D material available online that works with the clear glasses I got at Avatar screening?".
posted by hippybear at 2:59 PM on February 10, 2010

I've specifically hunted out every 3D display that I can find. Here's what I can tell you:

The most effective mechanism for 3D display is two projectors, precisely aligned with one another, one emitting horizontally polarized light and the other vertically polarized light. This gives you very light glasses, full resolution, and pixels that are fully aligned on top of one another. Oh, and no flicker.

All the screens you're hearing about coming out soon -- and I'm happy to be proven wrong -- are based on frame flipping. See, we've actually had the ability to push 120fps video to the screen for a while. So what they do is, they emit the left eye's frame, then the right eye's frame, then the left eye's frame, then the right eye's frame, over and over again. Meanwhile, the view wears LCD shutter glasses, that blind the correct eye at the correct time.

These actually work pretty well, but have problems with:

a) Shutter size. They've gotten bigger, but I've still not seen the sort of eye-wrapping lenses we get in the movies.
b) Price. This will come down, but fully active shutters will always be more expensive than a sheet of plastic.
c) Ghosting. Even at full strength, LCDs are not as able to block light as polarization filters.

Now, what's possible is that C has become a lot easier to manage, since LCD displays are already emitting polarized light. So there very well could be a best of both worlds effect going on.

What I have never, ever seen work -- and believe me, I've looked -- are those autostereoscopic displays. This is where the system tries to present one view to your left eye and another to your right eye, just based on position. These systems are awful. They tend to use lensing effects roughly akin to those 80's style lenticular sheets you'd have in your school binder. The reason these things all fail is you lose all this resolution to position -- this pixel is for your left eye, this pixel is for your right eye, and sometimes, this pixel is for your left eye if it moves a bit more to the left...

I've never seen it fail to turn images into chunky salsa. Worse, you get like an inch's worth of depth of field. They're awful.

There's some other wonky stuff going on out there -- like the failed experiment of putting two LCD screens in front of a backlight, which I did actually buy -- but I am reasonably hopeful for this new crop of shutter glass based systems. Oh, one final thing -- if you're not actually right in front of the TV, they usually stop flickering instantly since they stop getting their IR signaling. It's neat, and directly akin to a welder's mask.
posted by effugas at 3:06 PM on February 10, 2010 [4 favorites]

Here's my problem with 3D TV: It's not casual enough to be practical. When you watch it, you have to put on special glasses and plant yourself in front of the box. No watching the news while cooking in the kitchen. No idly half-watching Scrubs while doing homework. No passing through the living room and pausing to see what your spouse is watching before continuing on. And don't even think about inviting a bunch of friends over for a movie night unless you had the foresight to buy fifteen pairs of specs.

Requiring special headwear introduces a layer of inaccessibility that prevents people from being able to immediately engage (and immediately disengage when they've seen enough). It works in the movie theater, when people have paid money to be a captive audience. When the show has your undivided attention, 3D glasses are fine. Most homes, I think, are a lot more fluid than that, and people are a lot less willing to commit themselves wholly to the passive experience.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 3:10 PM on February 10, 2010

3D for people who do not have stereoscopic vision (Youtube demo of Jonny Lee's head tracking / desktop VR).

entropicamericana: Does anyone know what all this will look like if you do not have stereoscopic vision?

posted by ecco at 3:12 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

From the article: "All of this is rolling forward without any thought to the potential health hazards of continuous, long-term exposure to 3D. None of the television manufacturers have done any health & safety testing around this."

I too have not considered the potential health hazards of exposure to 3D. Just to be safe, I'll be wearing an eyepatch until more research has been done on the dangers of binocular vision.
posted by mullingitover at 3:14 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Does anyone know where I can get my hands on a 3D TV in Canada? Amazon.com is the only place I can find any of them. I really want to play Avatar in 3D on PS3 or Xbox.

3D-Enabled TVs (*tested during development):

- Mitsubishi: WD-57833, WD-65833, WD-73833, WD-60737, WD-65837, WD-82737, WD-60735*, WD-65735, WD-65736, WD-73735, WD-73736, WD-65737, WD-73737, WD-82737, WD-73837, WD-82837, WD-65835, WD-73835, L65-A90.
- Samsung: HL-T5076S*, HL-T5087S, HL-T7288W, HL-T6189S, HL-61A750, HL-72A650, HL-T5089S, HL-T5676S, HL-T5687S, HL-T5689S, HL-T6176S, HL-T6187S, HL61A750, HL67A750, HL50A650, HL56A650, HL61A650, HL72A650.
- Hyundai: S465D*.
- JVC: 463D10*.

I've tried bestbuy and futureshop's websites, went to both with the explicit list above. Checked the manufacturers' websites and found nothing other than amazon.com selling any of the above TVs. (US only).
posted by ecco at 3:16 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Winsome,

Man, there's stuff that just goes on in the background, and you can watch that in 2D without a worry. It's not like you can't just not render the other frame.

If you have a significant home theater system -- which, you know, a surprising number of people do -- you actually do want to watch movies with full attention. And, at scale, LCD shutter glasses are not complicated technology and will end up being $20 apiece if that.

What's really going on is that people are not replacing their DVDs with Blu-Rays in the way they were replacing VHS with DVD. And it turns out you can recover 3D depth cues from 2D scenes way better than you can, say, automagically apply color to old film. (Good link: http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/gallery-3d-auto/ ). So, if this stuff works, you really will see everything re-released in 3D.

And, you know? I'm kind of OK with that.
posted by effugas at 3:17 PM on February 10, 2010

it's a fad, and it cannot be more than that.

I agree. Perhaps I'll lose, but bet someone here $100, double or nothing, that this current 3D fad will pass (as all the the past 3D fads have passed). Any takers? (I'll only bet one person. I'm confident, but not so confident that I'm willing to risk bankruptcy.)

Here's why I think it will pass: theatre and film are conservative art forms. (And I would claim that the should be.) Unless we're talking about the avant garde, they are forms that present linear narratives -- the "and then... and then... and then..." sort that humans have told for the history of Humanity. These sorts of stories have three main components:

1. plot. (What happened?)
2. character. (Who did it happen to?)
3. atmosphere. (How did it feel?)

An innovation will only become sticky if it significantly aids one or more of those components.

Think of film history: first it was single-camera, single-view photography of a moving subject. That wasn't sufficient for most plots (which unfold via forward-jumps in time and positional jumps in space), so the innovations of camera movement and editing stuck.

Sound significantly helped all three points, above. Notably, it helped further character exploration.

Color mostly helped with atmosphere. Screen size and stereophonic sound helped with atmosphere, too.

No other major, obvious innovations have stuck. The word "obvious" is key here. I define an obvious innovation, in my special context, as an innovation that is immediately obvious and understandable to lay-audience members: if screens get bigger, we notice. If sounds come from multiple places at once, we notice. I am not including under-the-hood innovations, such as digital cameras and CGI (though, alas, we sometimes notice that).

Why haven't other innovations stuck? Why was sense-around a passing fad? Whence smell-o-rama? Why does 3D rear its head every other decade or so and then slink back into oblivion? (While the 3D movies of the past sometimes survive in 2D form: "Dial M For Murder," "Creature from the Black Lagoon," etc.) Because they don't add anything significant to plot, character or atmosphere.

Try to come up with something that does. It's an interesting thought experiment. Come on. I'll count to three...

If I'm wrong, my guess is that the locus of my error is around atmosphere. Doesn't 3D add to that?

I define atmospheric techniques as those bits of film craftsmanship that give you the "you are there" feeling. It's one thing to know what happen in a plot. It's another thing to FEEL it. Atmospheric techniques appeal to your senses. They are the things that make you feel dirty, uneasy, turned on, hungry, etc. My favorite example is "Full Metal Jacket." The photography and sound makes me feel so IN 'Nam that I have the urge to duck to avoid enemy fire.

It's easy to see how surround-sound aids this sort of atmosphere. Color, too. And large, engulfing screens. Why not 3D?

I don't know the definitive answer, but for me, it's because 3D feel less "real" to me than 2D. 3D is like a stuntish layer that is grafted on top of the film. It's cool. It sometimes impresses me. But it doesn't give me a "you are there" feeling. Similarly, if I was watching "Aliens" and suddenly Sigourney Weaver ran into the theatre, in full costume, and said, "Run! They're coming!" that would be cool -- but it would distance me more than it would immerse me.

Atmospheric effects that stick can never feel like stunts. They need to feel integrated, not layered on top.

2D is not 2D from a sensual point of view. 2D -- which my brain perceives as three-dimensional (based on traditional clues like perspective) -- feels MORE like my brain's version of 3D than the sort of 3D you see with those glasses. Think of those shots in, say, "The Shining" in which you peer down the length of the hotel hallway. Think of the deep focus shots in "Citizen Kane." My brain 100% perceives those as 3D. My brain perceives "Avatar" as having "cool popup-book effects."

Which is not to say I dislike such effects. They're fun, cool and impressive. But they don't add enough to the traditional craft of filmmaking (telling linear, narrative stories) to be sticky.

I don't find it at all strange that some people disagree with me about this. What IS odd to me is when people agree and are sad about it. Several times, I've heard people complain about the fact that it's very hard to innovate in film.

To me, being sad about that is like being sad about the fact that it's very hard to coin a new English word and have that word become a permanent part of the language. So what? Have we exhausted what we can do with the words we have?

If I'm right, it means that film has matured to the same level as painting and publishing. What can you add to a book (that sticks)? Nothing. The form is perfected. It serves the needs of most storytellers as they tell the sorts of stories most people want to read.

Instead of trying to break out of the "box," I wish filmmakers would put their extraordinary energy into telling really good stories within the box. (Which is HARDER to do that technical innovation. With the right training, I bet I could come up with a new technology. No amount of training will make me Shakespeare.) The time to start changing cinema is when 90% of the stories told with it are excellent. Currently, 90% of them suck. What we need are better writers, better actors, better directors... And if I'm wrong and the public continues to pay for 3D, that's fine. But can we have GOOD 3D movies?

Pixar innovates under-the-hood. They succeed because they are devoted to good, traditional storytelling.
posted by grumblebee at 3:24 PM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Glasses or no, he would buy a 3D TV tomorrow, if he could, and ruin the next 6 months of my life trying to get me to put the damned goggles on.

Like this?
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:25 PM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

Here's my problem with 3D TV: It's not casual enough to be practical. When you watch it, you have to put on special glasses and plant yourself in front of the box.

I'm guessing the popularity of any 3D TVs of the future is going to require two things; a button on the TV to quickly toggle between 3D and standard, and an industry of glasses manufacturers who cater to making different styles of frames so people can have something comfortable/ stylish.

In this respect, it'll probably be as common as sunglasses on a bright day, people will just have them and not really think about it.

If you are just hanging out in the same room as the TV you'll set it to standard display, when the show comes on that you want to dedicate your attention to, you'll get your snacks, get comfortable on the couch, throw on your specs and flip the TV to 3D.
posted by quin at 3:35 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

entropicamericana: the 3D films that use glasses will look just like normal 2D ones to you. So while you'd be wasting the extra cost on going to a 3D showing, it won't ruin the experience.
posted by zsazsa at 3:41 PM on February 10, 2010

That makes sense, quin. A reasonable compromise. The only thing that could be frustrating is the cases when Person A is dedicated to watching a show in all its 3D glory, and Person B is in the same room and just wants to have the show in the background while he works on something else. Of course that's entirely their problem, but it's one that doesn't currently exist, that would be created by introducing a second viewing mode.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 3:53 PM on February 10, 2010

It's a relatively uncommon issue, but besides causing difficulties for people with binocular vision problems, 3-D technology can also provoke dizziness, nausea, and vertigo in people sensitive to vestibular-visual conflict. This is especially true for people who already have inner-ear blockage or a vestibular disorder (which are generally underdiagnosed). I work for a nonprofit devoted to such disorders and msnbc.com just did an Avatar-related story on the phenomenon that seems relevant as another potential stumbling block for widespread adaptation of 3-D TV (so I hope it's not too self-linky to share).
posted by melissa may at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2010

I don't get the whole "It's too much work to put on the glasses" bit.

Are you people out of your mind? It's a lot of work to drive to the video store in the middle of winter just to find out they're sold out of the movie you wanted so you have to walk around looking at empty boxes to find what you want, and then bring it home.

But people did it, because when you watch a movie at home rather then whatever crap is on TV you actually do pay attention. People also invested in expensive audio systems, etc. So I'm sure there will be plenty of people who get the 3D glasses and watch movies that way. Maybe not everyone, but I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Dolby digital with N speakers never "took off" either but lots of people enjoy it. This will be a big hit with the audiophile/videophile set.

Anyway, the idea that you guys can sit here and prognosticate that this will never even have a place in the home (as opposed to always being used, which is clearly not going to happen) because you can't see yourself using it all the time is a little ridiculous.
posted by delmoi at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2010 [2 favorites]

I really like 3D when it's just an addition to what's already there, rather than the focus of the picture. So many 3D movies are terrible.

I actually heard someone complain that Avatar wasn't 3D enough, that it needed more effects, and I wanted so much to verbally pimp-slap them. 3D's not the point, the MOVIE is the point, and 3D should be just a tool to improve that.

It reminds of the difference between Pixar and Dreamworks movies.... so many Dreamworks pictures are full of roller-coaster sequences and stupid 3D effects; you can tell that the storyboards are often shaped around whatever neat trick they came up with this week. Pixar movies aren't like that... they're using technology to tell really interesting and different stories that wouldn't be easily possible in any other medium, but the technology isn't at all the point.

If they went that direction, I'd be quite interested in 3D television, even if I had to wear the stupid shutter glasses. I'd obviously PREFER not to wear them, but I get along okay in the theater, and I imagine it'd be okay at home too, at least sometimes. Hell, I wear glasses all the time now, it wouldn't be that different for TV. :)

If they insist on Stupid 3D Tricks, however, I'll be a very slow adopter indeed.
posted by Malor at 4:17 PM on February 10, 2010

Here's why I think it will pass: theatre and film are conservative art forms.

I think you could well be right about this. But Disney (along with Pixar) is buying into 3D-as-standard-issue all the way. I'm guessing they have some kind of market research telling them to spend all that money.
posted by Camofrog at 4:18 PM on February 10, 2010

To me, being sad about that is like being sad about the fact that it's very hard to coin a new English word and have that word become a permanent part of the language. So what? Have we exhausted what we can do with the words we have?

New words get coined all the time. I suppose its hard for one random person to do get a lot of people to adopt their word, but it happens all the time.

Also I entirely reject the premise that you can apply a little literary analysis to some movies and then determine what kind of hardware people are going to buy. There have never really been 3D television sets, but if it's possible to include the technology cheaply, then of course it will be included, just because people like to buy the "most awesome" TV they can, and 3D packs a hell of a lot more punch then 240Hz interpolate frames or whatever.

People will use it when they're watching movies they really want to see, or are otherwise deeply engaged, and leave it off for 'casual' viewing.
posted by delmoi at 4:21 PM on February 10, 2010

There have never really been 3D television sets, but if it's possible to include the technology cheaply, then of course it will be included

I have read that the technology only marginally increases the price.
posted by Camofrog at 4:24 PM on February 10, 2010

But people did it, because when you watch a movie at home rather then whatever crap is on TV you actually do pay attention. People also invested in expensive audio systems, etc. So I'm sure there will be plenty of people who get the 3D glasses and watch movies that way. Maybe not everyone, but I'm not sure why that's relevant.

You do understand that they are talking about broadcast 3DTV, and not just movies?

I'm not referring to watching movies at home. If you read what I wrote earlier, I don't once mention watching a movie.
posted by hippybear at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2010

In a word, no. The Avatar specs are some kind of magical circular polarization lenses.

It's not quite that simple; linear and circular polarization systems are both in play right now; we saw Up and Avatar at the same theater; Up was presented non-IMAX with circular polarization, while Avatar was an IMAX showing using linear polarization.

I don't know how many projectors were engaged for either showing, but the thrust of RealD seems to be using high-powered projectors running at double-framerate with a synchronized polarization shutter in front of the lens. Obviously it's convenient for the theater if they don't have to worry about registering two separate projectors.

You can tell which one you'll be seeing by putting on your glasses, looking at other people with their glasses on, and closing one eye; if one of their lenses turns black, you're doing linear. Also, when viewing a circular-polarized presentation, you can roll your head from side to side and not ruin the effect; with linear, moving your head like this screws up the relative alignment of your lenses and the projected light, and both channels go fuzzy.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:34 PM on February 10, 2010

I don't get the whole "It's too much work to put on the glasses" bit.

Are you people out of your mind?

HOLY SHIT WE MUST BE! or maybe we wear glasses already and are only willing to put up with the discomfort of wearing 2 frames at once for the timespan of one movie once in a blue moon. or maybe we just want to watch tv without needing to put on special gear, or we're rushing in and out of the room. maybe there are a million reasons why inconvenience can prevent a new technology from being widely adopted, even if (and that's a big if in this case) the tech is in some way cooler or better. even bluray isn't being adopted the way dvds were in an age of digital downloads (legal or illegal).
posted by shmegegge at 4:35 PM on February 10, 2010

Actually, 3D for home viewing will catch on just fine, so long as the TV remote has a button to toggle between modes.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:40 PM on February 10, 2010

Aha, that would explain our experience. I wonder too if IMAX screens just aren't nice enough for circular? Or maybe it's just some dumb legal/licensing thing... thou shalt not show RealD on thy Licensed IMAX Setup...
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:42 PM on February 10, 2010

And my first recommended test for detecting linear vs. circular may be incorrect or at least incomplete; the Wikipedia page for RealD shows glasses being put up to one another and the lenses blacking out.

But I do recall that, waiting for Up to start, I played around with our glasses (assuming they were linear, because I'd never heard of circular) and getting results I did not expect. Perhaps a resident Mephysicist will drop in to clear this up.
posted by Rat Spatula at 4:46 PM on February 10, 2010

The most effective mechanism for 3D display is two projectors, precisely aligned with one another, one emitting horizontally polarized light and the other vertically polarized light. This gives you very light glasses, full resolution, and pixels that are fully aligned on top of one another. Oh, and no flicker.

I've got to disagree that it's the "most effective" way to display 3d, specifically compared to the frame flipping that IMAX uses, that uses heavy "shutter" glasses.

Avatar was shown using both 3d methods, I saw Avatar using the polarized lenses and I've seen a few films in IMAX using the heavy shutter glasses (Polar Express, Superman Returns, Beowolf) and I got to give an edge to the shutter glasses and frame flipping. While I agree with all your criticisms that about weight, cost, and the awful ghosting, the heavy shutter do have a big advantage of conveying depth, it brings the screen a lot closer. Watching Polar Express, individual snowflakes were within arms length, the whole screen seemed much closer in 3d space, while watching Avatar (with polarized lenses) the 3d seemed to recede into the screen rather than come forward.
posted by bobo123 at 4:51 PM on February 10, 2010

> It's a lot of work to drive to the video store in the middle of winter just to find out they're sold out of the movie you wanted so you have to walk around looking at empty boxes to find what you want, and then bring it home.

Inconvenience will be accommodated when the reward is considered adequate. For decades, if you wanted to see a given movie on your own terms, you had to rent a tape or DVD from a store. The threshold to buy in was low, and the effort was neither more nor less than getting groceries. Many groceries capitalized on this by having their own video rental spaces. It wasn't even an inconvenience, it was a boon. There was no other way to see foreign films, anime, instructional videos, reruns of many TV series, indy movies, documentaries, and so on.

Netflix destroyed Blockbuster and its ilk; they have more movies than any local rental shop could offer, for less, and they deliver. And Netflix is frantically pushing their view-online services, trying to position themselves to be ready for the time when people consider walking all the way across the yard to the mailbox too much of an inconvenience.

The buy-in for 3D TV is pretty high. You need specialty kit, and you need special glasses. Those glasses are going to break and get lost. They'd better not have to be wired to anything. Unlike console games, where it's not hard to entertain a room full of people even if there are only two or four controllers available, everybody in the room is going to have to wear glasses to watch your 3D TV.

Whether these are deal breakers or not is hard to tell. If it only remains appealing to the early adoptor and high-end set, the format will probably wither because the cost and effort to produce to the format will not be as profitable as generating 2D content. Heck, it might die simply because a format war makes all alternatives equally unappealing to the consumer.
posted by ardgedee at 4:52 PM on February 10, 2010

I work in television and am involved in the efforts to bring 3D into the home.

There are an awful lot of things that have to go right to make the experience in the home work well. Unfortunately, a lot of key methods and decisions are still unknown at this point, simply because no one has done this before.

With launches this summer, there is the very real chance for a poor consumer experience that sours the public on the entire idea.

3D can work well in the lab environment and I've seen system that don't use glasses, but whether we can deliver this kind of experience to the homes of the average TV viewer is still up in the air.
posted by Argyle at 5:01 PM on February 10, 2010 [1 favorite]

Maybe not for casual TV, but the NVidia 3D thing with the shutter glasses and a 120hz refresh LCD screen for (well programmed) 3D enabled games is pretty fantastic.
posted by porpoise at 5:24 PM on February 10, 2010

my thoughts on 3d, based entirely on watching Avatar.

My thoughts on 3D were formed back in 2000 when I saw Cirque du Soleil's 3D IMAX film, Journey of Man. Now, I will admit that I was completely stoned at the time, but this was the first 3D IMAX thing I'd ever seen and I was amazed. "This is the future of entertainment!" is what I actually said at the time.

Since then, meh, there haven't been that many cool things to see in this format, unfortunately. Or maybe I just haven't heard of them. Anyhow, in the right hands, this technology can work some real magic.

That said, I'm not sure I need Scrubs in 3D. I'm thinking 3D tv isn't something I really want.
posted by apis mellifera at 8:06 PM on February 10, 2010

BrotherCaine: Glasses or no, he would buy a 3D TV tomorrow, if he could, and ruin the next 6 months of my life trying to get me to put the damned goggles on.

Like this?

Exactly like that. Thanks for finally getting me to watch They Live.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:46 PM on February 10, 2010

So stopping and thinking about things, OK, depth perception is just one of the ways that we figure out 3D. But wait a second, some of those other things are already simulated in TV - so watching TV is forcing my brain to ignore depth perception! So shouldn't I have lost my ability to see in 3D already?

Somebody wake me when a neurologist throws a yellow flag, until then I'm going to continue believing that it's not easy to screw up a couple million years of evolution.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:09 PM on February 10, 2010 [3 favorites]

Fad. The types of 3D displays being pitched are deeply flawed. They can't present correct depth cues (not even correct stereo) and they can't provide good brightness to multiple viewers. Not to mention the damned glasses. There are some promising designs/prototypes (e.g. Kurt Akeley's work) but they don't resemble anything being pitched for the home today.
posted by madmethods at 9:30 PM on February 10, 2010

One of these cycles 3D will stop being a fad and become standard. A third dimension means an order of magnitude more ways to arrange and present information. We're inexorably on our way. When it starts getting used smartly and creatively, rather than just for stupid lulz, a 2D screen will feel very limited. Maybe not this time around, but for sure next time.

Anyway, it's been all the rage in some circles since at least 1977.
posted by Camofrog at 10:01 PM on February 10, 2010

One of these cycles 3D will stop being a fad and become standard.

Yup. If not soon, eventually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:20 PM on February 10, 2010

At the theater where I saw Avatar, they had a 3DHDTV (is that what you call them?) in the lobby, with a box of glasses so you could see the action. It's essentially the same effect as the theater 3D, though obviously not as grand.

I think this will absolutely take off. And not just take off, but in ten years' time be standard with every TV made. There are two reasons I can see for this:

One, it's cheap. The technology to make a 3DTV is not expensive, so early adopters will simply be paying for the novelty. In time, when more companies are making them, the novelty will wear off and it'll be standard.

Two, it's optional. Don't like 3D? Fine, just push the 3D button on your remote. Problem solved. You can switch back and forth easily.

I'm sure someone will think of more advancements: like better glasses (though I had no problem with the glasses I saw Avatar with; the only other 3D movie I've seen was JAWS 3D--with the red and blue glasses...now THOSE glasses gave me a headache). My only gripe with 3D is the significant color bleed, I hope that gets resolved.
posted by zardoz at 10:32 PM on February 10, 2010

Rat Spatula: the glasses are a "backwards" CPL (if you're used to dealing with a CPL as a camera filter) with the 1/4-wave plate at the front of the lens instead of the rear. One channel is left-circular polarised, the other eye is right-circular polarised. The 1/4WP converts circular polarised light into linear polarised light, where the orientation is (depending on its chirality) one of two possible choices. The linear polariser behind the 1/4WP then selects which channel you see.

So if you wave the glasses in front of each other using an unpolarised (daylight) source behind them, you get:
- front-to-back: constant attenuation due to applying linear PL to a CPL wave
- back-to-back: rotation-dependent attenuation as you get with linear PLs
- front-to-front, same lens: no attenuation compared to single lens
- front-to-front, other lens: strong rotation-dependent colour filtering

The reason for the colour filtering is that the 1/4WP is tuned for the green wavelength. Longer or shorter wavelengths come out elliptically polarised, which means that as you rotate one lens, you get strong filtering of the red or blue end of the spectrum, causing wacky colour shifts.
posted by polyglot at 10:54 PM on February 10, 2010

wikicitation for Real-D. Obviously this means that both channels could be transmitted at once, so no flickering, but current projectors don't actually do that for simplicity, cost and alignment reasons. If you put one large LCD element in the projector to rotate polarisation of the whole image 90 degrees (which is how LCDs work, by rotating linearly-polarised light when activated), that will have the effect of flipping the chirality of the output after it's gone through the 1/4WP.

So you can build a simple, perfectly-aligned projector if you frame-flip. Or you can double the cost and have no flipping, but setup (alignment, focus, etc) is messy. Current projector implementations are the former because framerates are high enough now that flipping isn't a problem.
posted by polyglot at 11:05 PM on February 10, 2010

Thanks!
posted by Rat Spatula at 7:35 AM on February 11, 2010

A question for the 3D naysayers. Why did HDTV take off, and why won't 3D follow a similar model? I've no skin in this game, but I'm curious as to why the HDTV model doesn't apply to 3D.
posted by forforf at 9:22 AM on February 11, 2010

well, I'm no expert, and I think 3D MIGHT take off, but probably won't.

HDTV is a straightforwardly positive change. it brings us closer to the kind of image resolution you get in a theater, the quality difference is unequivocally and noticeably better. 3d is... better maybe? I mean, if you're way into the 3d thing, it's better, I guess, if you don't mind wearing glasses whenever you watch tv and you can deal with the focus issues. it's not worse, but as an improvement over our previous viewing experience it's not as clear-cut. which might make the difference.
posted by shmegegge at 9:48 AM on February 11, 2010

HDTV took off because it had a government mandate?
posted by entropicamericana at 11:12 AM on February 11, 2010

I don't know this technology from Adam, but I would think that 3DTV won't take off until it can be displayed within the picture, rather than having to wear headsets. You won't be immersed in the 3D landscape, but images within the screen will have far more depth than 2D.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:26 AM on February 11, 2010

Watching Polar Express, individual snowflakes were within arms length, the whole screen seemed much closer in 3d space, while watching Avatar (with polarized lenses) the 3d seemed to recede into the screen rather than come forward.

This is because of the content, not because of the projection method. James Cameron was actively avoiding a lot of 3D effects, precisely because they were too obviously gimmicky.

I could be convinced that a super high framerate projector, flipping polarity with each frame, would handily beat the double-aligned projectors.
posted by effugas at 11:26 AM on February 11, 2010

I would think that 3DTV won't take off until it can be displayed within the picture, rather than having to wear headsets.

Yeah, either that, or some system where non-bespectacled viewers see plain-old-2D with HD quality. Or, again, a switch on the TV to toggle between modes (which seems like it would be trivial to implement; just show the left-channel frames or something).

God, imagine what the 24-hour cable news channels will be able to do with the crawl.
posted by Rat Spatula at 12:54 PM on February 11, 2010

But we're going to be getting 3D TVs that don't need glasses aren't we?

I thought I heard Spielberg is working on a 3D film that doesn't need glasses. And a poster above mentioned he'd seen a prototype 3D TV that doesn't need glasses. So glasses will get people accustomed to is and then it'll go universal.
posted by RufusW at 9:56 PM on February 11, 2010