Comments on: Do you actually want 3D?

By: Kicytarry

Kicytarry — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:45:26 +0000

[...] the 3D. Yes the effects are impressive, especially the roller coaster, but the one t... ...

By: David Wright

David Wright — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 07:58:54 +0000

As long as it requires special glasses etc. I think it is going to be a non-starter. If they get a breakthrough in holographic display technology, then they might be onto something, but I won’t be queuing up for a 3D TV anytime soon…

By: Tom Arah

Tom Arah — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:23:38 +0000

Having just returned from taking the family to Bolt 3D (surprisingly enjoyable) and seeing the ads for all the forthcoming 3D movies it’s clear that the animation studios are keen. But I think that’s largely technology and novelty driven ie it’s relatively simple to render 3D animations and currently folk are willing to pay a premium and more likely to pay to see it a second time. The 3D worked fine but it really didn’t add a huge amount. Basically I don’t think that people see the screen as flat so 3D is filling a hole that isn’t there.

By: 3D Wannabe

3D Wannabe — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:43:55 +0000

I’m a doctoral researcher studying 3D without using stereo. Disparity (eg conventional 3D) is pretty much just useful for looking at Magic Eye pictures. That’s why the world doesn’t look like a painted sphere when we close one eye. Paul, you’re spot on, when we see what we perceive as distant objects, the eyes try to focus on the horizon and are set to parallel.. And if we’re doing that, then there is no disparity anyways… This is the very opposite of what conventional 3D does with close range accommodation and convergence. Disparity is good for scrutinizing nearfield objects, and has the property of being scalable so that we can exaggerate it to make things stand out unnaturally (not to mention look tiny due to miniaturization effects of hyperstereo). These problems are being solved one by one but you only have to look at the recent broadcast of rugby or American football in ‘3D’ where half of the cinemas had the channels the wrong way round so that people were getting a pseudoscopic image. Guess what, most people didn’t realise…
So there are some of the problems. I’m working on the solution – if anyone is interested give me a heads up!

By: Paul Ockenden

Paul Ockenden — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:51:00 +0000

Having seen a few 3D things I’d place them alongside those bloody “stare at this and cross your eyes and a 3D train (it was always a train) will appear” pictures.

Yes, the effect works. No, I wouldn’t want to sit staring it for longer than a very short number of minutes.

By: technogeist

technogeist — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:22:45 +0000

Oh, by the way, I was referring to lenticular displays.

By: technogeist

technogeist — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:19:05 +0000

Yes, when displays provide 3D at the same resolutions as current non-3D ones do.

We’re still forced to use a 2D desktop UI, but working in a 3D environment would be a truer reflection of the real world we inhabit.

It can’t come soon enough.

By: Lacloss

Lacloss — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:58:52 +0000

Only having one eye that works kind of takes the joy out of 3D for me ¿¿¿¿

By: paul

paul — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:29:17 +0000

I have seen several special effects movies in IMAX cinemas where the viewer has to wear special glasses to see the 3D. Yes the effects are impressive, especially the roller coaster, but the one thing I remember above all of that is the fact that it gave me eye strain and an intense head ache within 10 mims. The reason for this was that because your brain “sees” 3D, it instinctively tries to refocus the eye on things that it believes to be further away than they really are, in an attempt to bring them into focus but in reality all parts of the 3D image were the same distance away (because they were projected onto a flat screen) and were thus as “in focus” as they were ever going to be. If 3D TV is anything like this it will be a non-started for me – has anyone else suffered this way?

By: Paul B

Paul B — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:10:42 +0000

As long as you have to wear special glasses to watch this new wave of 3D (as I believe you still have to) I won’t consider investing in it.