Despite a relatively tepid consumer take-up, the buzz surrounding 3D television is still quite intense. But even the viewing improvements offered by stereoscopic technology may pale by comparison to the holographic goings-on at MIT (http://redirectingat.com/?id=3971X639606&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fobm.media.mit.edu%2F&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gizmag.com%2Fmit-develops-consumer-tech-holographic-projection-system%2F17732%2F). Researchers are taking the first steps toward making holographic technology a reality for consumers. Using primarily off-the-shelf components, the team has managed to capture, transmit and display a holographic subject on-the-fly.

More at: Consumer holographic TV creeps closer to reality (http://www.gizmag.com/mit-develops-consumer-tech-holographic-projection-system/17732/)

Sounds promising until you watch the video...

About the same as the first B&W TV systems that were developed. At least these days we have the technological means to ramp up the resolution very quickly.

Andrew

I am one of those who can't watch 3D without getting dizzy or having a headache. Since I am not an isolate case, as I read in various studies, I have never put any faith in the future of Stereo 3D. Even people who do not experience my problem, do have a problem with the glasses, especially for home viewing. I truly believe that holographic 3D, which may take a decade or more to come to fruition, is the only thing that is going to replace our current viewing experience.

Have you checked yet that your problem with the 3D viewing through glasses isn't an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?

This is one possible reason for a headache, which in turn would be caused by the 3D delivery forcing both eyes to work equally .... forcing the lazy eye to work harder than it is used to.

If it is a lazy eye that is the source of the headaches, then the technology for 3D is actually okay, and the continued viewing of 3D content will actually help you.

Andrew

Have you checked yet that your problem with the 3D viewing through glasses isn't an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?

This is one possible reason for a headache, which in turn would be caused by the 3D delivery forcing both eyes to work equally .... forcing the lazy eye to work harder than it is used to.

If it is a lazy eye that is the source of the headaches, then the technology for 3D is actually okay, and the continued viewing of 3D content will actually help you.

Andrew
Interesting response. One inference is that there may be something wrong with people who find viewing 3D content unpleasant or even sickening. No less than Walter Murch, hardly a Luddite, says stereoscopic 3D doesn't and won't ever work (see "Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed." (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html)).

Is that what Nintendo is using to make that 3D effect happen on their upcoming 3DS handheld system???

Holography is still in the stone age as far as trying to make movies out of it. Even when it becomes practically viable, it will take ages to make it profitable...unless somebody claims it is possible...as in this case: Holographic Cinema, 3D Digital Movies, 3D TV, 3D Advertising, 3D Presentations and 3D Virtual Reality (http://www.holocinema.com/)

Hi Lawrence,

Yes, I'm aware of that article and almost got around to posting it. This guy knows his stuff and thinks well.

To me it's a case of there being a few more limitations that you have to work within if you are going to do "correct" 3D work that doesn't alienate the audience courtesy of the technology limitations. (Disclosure: I have no intention of ever producing content in 3D. Might watch a 3D film, though.)

Perhaps not everybody will be able to enjoy viewing 3D movies, but not everybody goes to see movies anyway. On the other hand, if 80% of your regular audience can enjoy 3D and will pay a premium to do so, then the business case for 3D can still win out.

As for having a lazy eye, this is a legitimate possibility and should be ruled out before proceeding on to anything else. There are other issues which can prevent people from 'getting' the 3D experience, but it's less typing if I don't go there right now. :-)

Andrew

Forget stereo 3D, holographic 3D is the future


for sure it is, but still , maybe not very, but distant from now

So far in the future it looks kinda blurry right now. :-)

Andrew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
stereoscopic 3D doesn't and won't ever work
---------------------------------------------------------------------

People are buying tickets. it IS working. End of story.

It's been about 3 years. 3D is here to stay in theaters (heck the 2nd run dollar theater in my town now has 3-D ). Once it becomes accesible to the average person ($50+ for a pair of glasses is far from affordable) it will become commonplace in the home as well. We may not all like 3D, but its best to understand that this is what people want.

On an artistic level, I'm all about 3D. ANYTHING that can make a film more visually immersive is a valuable tool. The "gimmick appeal" will wear off, and people will come to understand the difference between GOOD 3-D (UP, Avatar) and BAD 3-D (the Last Airbender, Clash of the Titans) and the latter will slowly dissapear, but even when said gimmick wears off, people will still come to expect 3-D for their money.

Avatar is the perfect example. After it came out, it was assumed that ALL movies in 3-D would become more successful. This was not the case (tickets sales in general have had a bit of a downturn lately). As it relates to 3-D movies, i think avatar really just set the "standard" and 3-d movies that dont appraoch that standard are falling to the wayside.

I'd actually love too sit down and look at the profitability of REAL 3-D movies compared to the crappy Clash of the Titans 3-D. How to train your dragon was pretty successful. I may do just that this weekend.

One of the posts in the comments section of that article said it best:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I think there's an intangible reward you experience when you are watching a modern 3-D image and receiving it as intended. It's why we keep watching 3-D movies. Those moments when it works correctly make it worth the effort we've expended. Of course, terrible 3-D movies undermine that reward, bringing us back to the real problem with 3-D movies: bad movies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "price inflation" as an argument against it is hilarious. THINK about how much movie ticket prices skyrocketed in the last 10-15 years, and that was WITHOUT a premium upgrade to the experience like 3-D. I'd blame ticket price inflation more on the general inflation of movie budgets over the last several years.

Now is the time to evolve professionally. I'm trying to familiarize myself as much as possible with 3-D workflows (though I'm admittedly late to the game). Even IF it's a passing trend (which i doubt), I intend to cash in on it as much as I can while I can.

Holographic 3-D is even MORE exciting to me. This is the beginning of freakin' Holodecks!

Have you checked yet that your problem with the 3D viewing through glasses isn't an undiagnosed "lazy eye"?

This is one possible reason for a headache, which in turn would be caused by the 3D delivery forcing both eyes to work equally .... forcing the lazy eye to work harder than it is used to.

If it is a lazy eye that is the source of the headaches, then the technology for 3D is actually okay, and the continued viewing of 3D content will actually help you.

Andrew

My cousin was recently asking about 3D technology. He can only see out of one eye. Not a question about a "lazy eye" -- he simply can't see with one and 3D technology isn't going to "help" it back to vision. How is he (and others in his situation) going to watch 3D?

I think we can give your cousin a free pass on this one. It's fairly safe to say that only having the use of one eye is the exception when it comes to the general population.

As my grandmother (totally blind, nada, zip, nothing at all) would readily agree .... blindness really sucks.

There are people with undiagnosed lazy eye syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amblyopia) out there and they will encounter difficulty with the 3D technology. Fortunately for them watching 3D content is an excellent way to rectify the imbalance in how the brain processes the content received from each eye.

This isn't to state that anybody who has difficulties with the technology has a lazy eye, but that this is one potential issue and that it may not necessarily be the 3D technology at fault.

Andrew

If you only see out of one eye, you need to wear the glasses as required by the 3D system. Otherwise, you see the right and left images mixed (crosstalk = 100%). Put on the glasses and his sighted eye will see a 2D video.

It won't be as good as watching a 2D movie:
* He needs to wear the glasses
* There will be some crosstalk from the alternate image
* The image isn't as bright (or you burn more power to compensate.)
* The director may have made some artistic compromises for 3D viewing

But it's not like he can't watch and enjoy the content.

I don't think the blind-out-of-one-eye argument is very valid. Don't get me wrong, I wish your cousin the very best, but i just don't think thats a very valid argument against 3D.

The same could be said about 2D movies and people who are blind in both eyes.
The same could also be said about movies with Audio of any kind for hearing impaired.

...And for Micheal Bay movies and people with no sense of taste!

BA DAP CHING!

I hear you.

But no, I'm not asking on any moral ground -- I'm asking what will be the implications for those only cannot see with stereo vision. That's all. Will you still be able to watch regular 2D (even as others watch in 3D)? How will it look, etc.?

Basically if he puts the glasses on it will be the same movie in 2-D. It may look slightly distorted for a slipt second here and there, and it will be about a stop darker than a regular 2d movie. But as long as he has the polarizing glasses on, he should be able to watch it just fine.

*edit*

Give it a try. Go see a 3D movie and close one eye for a few seconds.

i once saw a dance performance in which the 2 dancers were interacting with holographic copies of themselves. the stage also filled with holographic water at one point and there was a pretty cool "floating in space" kind of sequence too.

it was in a normal theatre space but they had installed some pretty fancy stuff. was a very amazing show on many levels, not only because of the amazing tech.

but a holographic movie without the live element... i'm not sure it would be so nice... part of the fun of holograms is being able to move around them, not being stuck in a theatre seat (the live dancers kind of provided that function (to a degree) in the show i saw).

i guess 3D movies are kind of cool, sometimes. i can't remember what author was mentioning that 3D seems to just come and go as a semi-regular fad... and each time it shows up it's supposed to herald the end of history, but then just fades out.

seems to me that Mr. Walter Murch is talking sense. very much. if 3D is going to cause so many limitations and extra hassles it might remove more possibilities for expression than it adds.

personally, i'd rather see things go in the direction of 'Dogville' than towards 'Titanic'.

Brian, I'm not an expert on holography but don't lasers need a medium to project on to? Did they use smoke or some such screen during the course of the dance?

If they have achieved it, it's definitely fascinating. I would appreciate it if you could let me know the name and website of the production team that achieved this if possible. Thanks.

they held a q&a after their performance,
but were obliged to avoid tech details on the hologram stuff.
quite probably it's still a well guarded secret.
i.e. they would neither confirm nor deny any nerdy theories from the audience.
i had no clue how it was done and neither did anyone else i spoke with.
anyway, this is the dance company:
PPS Danse, Montréal - Page d'accueil - Actualités (http://www.ppsdanse.com/fr/index.html)

Thanks. I'll send them an email and see what I can find.

Sounds promising until you watch the video...

LOL! I can't tell what was worse the girl playing Princess Leia or the image that looked like a sonogram of a fetus.

I'm sure things will get better.

I still think the current 3D technology is simply not there.

- Fuzzy images
- Resolution loss
- Need to wear uncomfortable glasses
- I find it not believable... how can I believe the 3D when I see the cinema, people around me, the sides of the screen... it is the same in 2D but 2D doesn't ask me to believe it is 3D

3D for me still is a Disney attraction... nothing more. I thought Tron was nice, but most of that movie was 2D and the fuzzy images annoyed me. The trailer for Pirates 4 was horrible. I hope in a year or two, I still have the chance to see a 2D movie as theaters are massively switching to 3D... more money to be made.

I will stick with BluRay releases when that happens. It will be another decade or two before the technology is ready... I feel another crash coming in a year or so... when the 3D hype is over.

During a visit to Expo in Shanghai last June we saw 3D without glasses in the Siemens pavilion, and while the viewing angle was kinda narrow imo, there was enormous interest in it.

By 11am each day, there was a long queue round the block and folk were limited to 5mins viewing. But it worked and the reps said they have advanced well past that demo set. It's here, like it or not.

Cheers.

Alan,

Yes, 3D is here. It is definitely not new, I watched them as a kid Decades ago.

For someone who wears glasses this becomes even a bigger problem. If you have to wear glasses over glasses it is a joke. Totally ruins the movie experience.

For regular movies I just do not see any real advantage to watching them in 3D.

Watching something like avatar is another matter.

The Green Hornet the 3D really was not an asset in my book. Also if you had to take the glasses off the image totally sucks. That means you have to watch in 3D.

How long until theaters will not run both versions???

If all movies go 3D I would likly not attend the big screen very often, and I know there are more people that think like that than one might guess!!

I think it is great for animated movies like Cartoons and cg movies like Avatar.

what does it add to regular movies???

I personally hope it stays on the fringe, or at least specialized.


I have watched lazer halographic shows, pretty cool, but for movies I suspect thats way off, if ever!!!

Still hard to beat simple OLD film.

Great stories are more than a product of their three dimensional space.

Does this sound like a rant?? not ment to be..!

I don't think there's any worry about theaters going completely 3-D. Yes, 3-D will be applied to animated films like Toy Story 3, Kung Fu Panda 2, Rango. And to big Hollywood blockbusters and action films from Avatar, to Green Hornet, to Transformers, Green Lantern, Thor, Pirates of the Carribean. But, lesser budgeted films, indpedant films, and seriously dramtic films like the King's Speech, The Fighter, The Social Network, to name a few are not going to be displayed in 3-D. Right now, 3-D is a means for Hollywood to get a greater return on their bigger budgeted films.


Ozzy

I think debates like this can get a little funny sometimes. People who 'support' or like 3D will
say 'it's here, people are paying for it'. Others who 'oppose' it or dislike it will say that
most people they know hate it and won't go to 3d movies. So who's right? Probably both of them.
you may see people swarming to 3d theatres or refusing to go, but trust me, it's different everywhere.
I've been places (small towns of 20 thousand) that have 3d theatres with plenty of people in them.
I've been in other bigger cities that don't have a single 3d theatre in them......and talked to plenty
of people who both like and dislike it. I think as a 'in the theatre' experience it will probably
stay here, and a certain percentage of movies will be produced in 3d. I think the question is at home.
I am certainly one of those people who does NOT want to wear glasses while watching my tv set
at home. I would guess that 3d is here to stay, but I don't know if it will become as integrated
into all forms of media consumption as some people seem to think. I guess we will see......

i just purchased 2 samsung 3d screen (one 46 and one 55 inches), plenty of movies and glasses.
i shoot my family movies in 3D full HD (with a pair of sanyo FH1 and before with NuView adapter) and wear glasses all day. I am very happy with stereoscopic.

and yes stereovision without HD is hopeless and shallow DOF is just an useless concept with 3D.

today a 3D cam cost $1500 and a 3D screen costs not much as 2D screen.
we just need Apple to lauch the first iPad 3d for full acceptance of the concept.

Here's something that just popped up in the news today: Doctor developing eye problem detector says 3DS can't detect eye problems (http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/nintendo-3ds-provides-wonderful-opportunity-to-catch-eye-problems-early-in-kids/story-e6frfrt9-1226025180631)

Going to see a 3D movie or trying a 3D TV can also help screen for problems, but optometrists expect the 3DS to be in front of kids' eyes more.

"This has presented my profession, optometry, a wonderful opportunity," Dr Joe Ellis, president of the optometrists' association, said.

A whole lot of "interesting". And there is more at the article.

Andrew

I've managed to see the 3DS at my local Best Buy which has the system on display and played with it for a while. I don't know if this thing will be a help for kids with eye problems or not but the 3-D effect on this thing is pretty amazing for such a tiny video game system.


Ozzy