Bits Life Without 3D

I want holograms now....

 

VR makes a comeback in 2011?!

Holography (see pic) and the companies website

 

Over 15% of people are legaly blind or hard of hearing its just a sad fact not all of us can get everything out of every experiance.

Hard on the heals of SD to HD REALLY, my HD tv is nearly 5 years old life cycles of tec man were moving on.

Personaly i would like the resolutions to get another bump but clearly 3D is not hard to do just need higher screen refresh rate and a pair of polarised filters (havent had the pleasure of active shutter or filterless 3D yet). I honestly dont see your problem as its just a feature like Stereo 5.1 or 7.1 not everyone hears the difference it wont make a bad movie good or a good movie bad.

Its not like they stopped DVD's when BlueRay came out. Why would they stop doing 2D edtions?

As for the last point um I look to review sites to tell me about new tec not tec I already have, I already did the research on that is I know my screan is good.

As with everything early adopters beware your path might not become standard you risk being deadended and the prices will drop a huge amount as the tec becomes mainstream. But None Of This Should Be News To A Tec Enthusiast.

Just make sure you buy the right Hardware and software for your needs if you cannot see 3D go 2D and if you can and dont get the negative side effects then i really dont see why having the option is a bad thing.

Good place to test is the cinema (pick a movie that was shot in 3d not a convertion although cartoons are good to bight colour palet definatly comes up better IMO) 8-12 quid and you will soon know if its for you or not.

 

Well said Cool_CR. The amount of hostility levelled at stereoscopic 3d is astonishing. I don't think 3d is being forced on everyone. It's an option and it will become more so as it's refined. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to use it so I don't see what all the negativity is about (not so much this thread but in the other recent bit-tech 3d articles).

I personally love 3d. I've rendered in 3d, played games in 3d and taken photographs in 3d long before this most recent push towards stereoscopic tech. The reason we're seeing it emerge in a big way now is simply because the processing power is available to deliver 3d in high definition. Given time things will settle down and some standards will be set for 3d so we aren't faced with a bunch of competing technologies from various companies.

 

I have amblyopia (lazy eye), and I can see 3d just fine! I do think it is just a massive gimmick though.

I never could get magic eye to work though...

 

I lol'd.

 

How can it be a gimmick? That just doesn't make sense logically. You could call gestural control systems a gimmick or how about mind control systems? Anything can be called a gimmick if you fail to see the potential.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am used to seeing the world in 3d. It doesn't take a genius to take visual tech one step further so that is 3d also. I would say a gimmick would be the misuse of 3d. Perhaps some very badly made 3d movie that would fail in 2d format so they add fake 3d. That's a gimmick. 3d that's done well is far from being a gimmick. I think many people seem to lack the ability to see the full potential of something. I envisage 3d art in high definition or 3d action from the cockpit of a drag racer or F16. There is so much great potential for 3d that's well made.

 

I have only one working eye until surgery, and I can tell the difference between my wife's real breasts and the fake pixelated ones. I just can't see the 3D illusion stuff.

(Also, with only one eye you lose most depth perception, that's the idea of the canes we all carry if we have only one eye or are legally blind.)

 

I think the use of 3D will improve but it takes a bit of work on everyone's part:
-We need to get used to 3D. It's one of those things that the more you use it the less tiring it becomes - I think your brain adapts and stops trying to fight it as much. You may say this is bad but I've seen plenty of people play a computer game for the first time in 2D and feel sick because they aren't used to it. 3D is the same.

-The hardware makers need to improve. 3D vision is a good start providing at least a consistent standard but even with that monitors/glasses have some crosstalk which obviously lessens the effect and probably causes more work for our eyes/brains. We need even faster responding LCD's and glasses with even better timing. Also 3D adds lag, lowers refresh rate and lowers fps due to it being harder to display. These factors mean that in a competitive fps you'd be better playing with 3D off, until that is fixed (e.g. monitors go up to refreshing at 240hz + graphics cards can maintain a steady fps) it will never be a competitive gaming option.

-The software needs to be 100% 3D compatible and written by people who understand how to do 3D well, not just add it as an afterthought. For example anything out -of-screen will quickly cause eyestrain because your eyes are fooled into trying to focus in-front of the screen, then not seeing anything they focus on the screen, then infront... this cycling is very tiring. Any game either not 3D ready or where it's just added quickly as an after thought isn't going to be as easy on the eyes or nice to look at as one that is.

I say this talking as someone who both can see 3D and has a 120hz monitor + 3D vision kit, but who uses it infrequently due to mostly playing online shooters, and/or games that aren't 100% 3D ready.

 

Oh Willum.

Now you have to start all over again.

 

Oh dear, it's getting into "done well" territory already?

Eyefinity done well is also an amazing experience. A fighter jet simulator designed for use with it would be excellent, imagine physically turning your head to look up or sideways rather than having to press a button to turn your camera, and having all the instrumentation displayed around you. Far more immersive than 3D! Surrounding yourself with vision is also a logical step towards realistic vision, indeed it's been used many times in works of science fiction. In real life if you want to see left you turn your head left, so why should you not make a display that emulates that?

But that doesn't make it some must-have progression in technology. It imposes new requirements and limitations and not everything is meant to use it, some games are designed to be viewed through the window provided, just as some games are meant to be viewed in 2D rather than 3D.

 

am i the only one that got to page 2 and thought "how does jack sparrow know so much about eyes" then hand met face when i rememberd jack sparrow isnt real and the name infact was Karen Sparrow lmao! was that intentional?

 

I saw AOA (page 1) and immediately thought AQA (exams). AHHHHH!

 

You see I agree with some things you say. I agree a multi-monitor setup can be great. Surrounding yourself with vision would also be amazing. The problem for me is you seem to regard 3d is competition for those technologies when in fact it can complement them. I'd much rather surround myself with 3d vision than surround myself with flat imagery. I think it should be optional. I don't think the anti-3d brigade should tell us we can't have 3d tech because they illogically dismiss it as a gimmick, nor do I think the companies producing 3d tech tell us we all need 3d. That's not going to happen anyway.

I just don't like false information spouted by the anti-3d campaigners who try their very hardest to convince those who haven't experienced it that it's the worst thing ever.

Back when I was playing games in 3d, I chose to play some games in 2d and some in 3d, I also used a Fresnel lens with and without 3d. It seems really odd that many people here are so misinformed and reach the strangest conclusions. For some strange reason you see 3d as a competing technology, you seem to think multi-monitor arrays are a better option. They aren't a better option, they aren't a competing technology, 3d is a developing tech that will eventually complement these other technologies from multi-monitor setups to gesture/motion control.

Having used 3d tech I loved the experience of having a sense of depth to what I was playing. I'm not the type of person who complains bitterly because the tech isn't yet perfect. I understand that it's being refined and many advances are being made. I don't feel any pressure to sell my 2d TV's and buy 3d. I will eventually when things settle down and some clear 3d standards are set. Nvidia have had their own 3d tech for many years and that worked well enough for me.

I'm not the kind of person who gets bitter because new hardware is released that I can't afford.

 

You can make your own 2d glasses if you want. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2010/01/how_to_enjoy_a_3d_movie.html

 

It certainly doesn't have to compete, it just fits better into the example to keep things only to the contradictions. Both are developing technologies meant to change the way we see our displays and both face similar drawbacks. I do prefer Eyefinity to 3D if I only got to choose one, though 120Hz is the gimmick I'm most interested in and that, for the time being, is largely incompatible with 3D (until we get mainstream 240Hz monitors).

The strong resistance to 3D is likely because other people do feel pressured to buy into 3D. It's being pushed with some pretty strong force and no one likes things rammed down their throat. Just look at the thread in the hardware section about 16:9 versus 16:10, people enjoy being able to choose whichever they want without pressure from the industry. Have you seen any TV commercials for 3D TVs? It's exactly like the HD push all over again, selling the tech as some revolutionary breakthrough that will forever change the way you view the world. It's not that it's a bad technology, it's the huge overhype that they're pushing back against.

Or at least that's my reasoning. I can't stand the glasses, they bothered me even after just a few minutes of watching a 3D TV at Sear's (not headaches or nausea, just hate staring at a screen wearing silly sunglasses). Not buying into it until they make the glasses-less tech cheaper and more mainstream so they can stop trying to make me feel like a second-class citizen for not owning 3D tech. Regardless of what the marketing says my friends won't abandon me to go be buds with Jeff because he has a 3D TV.

 

I like 3D flim, I must admit.

There are some truths to it being a negative experience though certainly.

There does seem to be some loss of contrast when viewing 3D. Being forced not to focus anywhere but where the camera is focused isn't so good either. It certainly takes the fun out of looking into the set for me when my eyes look at something that isn't the main focus. It pulls me out of the experience... similar to the uncanny valley breaking the suspense of disbelief.

I do feel that HD and larger resolutions create a sense of depth that you can enjoy more readily than 3D. I also personally feel the wait will be over for 3D to make sense, when, you don't need glasses.

I'm definitely in two minds about it. Overall, I'd go see a movie in 3D, but would not buy into the tvs until the glasses are gone.

I'm most concerened about what playing games is going to be like when you have to focus where the camera is pointed. I don't want to have to stare at the centre all the time. I haven't tried 3d gaming though so I don't really have a concrete opinion either...

I don't think it's a gimmick, but it certainly isn't a must right now in terms of a feature.

 

That only works if cinema uses polarized glasses, cinemas here moved to shutter glasses...

 

to the article writer:
YOU'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING.
While Avatar was an experience, no other movie has come close (maybe Coraline: something about the stop motion worked very well in 3d). Conversions suck, period. The CG movies like Shrek or Gardians of Gaahoole, are really not any better in 3d. And even the real native 3d like Resident Evil 4 and Tron Legacy, the 3d adds NOTHING to the experience. After Tron:L, I gave up on 3d. Period. I'm not paying extra for no better experience. Call me when Avatar 2 comes out, cause Jim Cameron seems to know how to do it, but for everything else, it'll be decades before there's more than a handful of 3d movies worth watching in 3d, forget tv.

 

^Like this, but expensive:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/e8be/